On Saturday 25 January 2014 15:33:58 Alex Deucher did opine:
> I guess gmail mangled it. Does the attached work any better?
>
>
> Alex
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Julien Cristau
wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > When trying to verify this message, I get
> > gpg: BAD signature from "Alex
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 15:26:51 -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> I guess gmail mangled it. Does the attached work any better?
>
Yes, looks good. Thanks!
Cheers,
Julien
___
xorg@lists.x.org: X.Org support
Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/x
I guess gmail mangled it. Does the attached work any better?
Alex
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> When trying to verify this message, I get
> gpg: BAD signature from "Alex Deucher "
> :(
>
> If this isn't just me, any chance to get the tarball checksums in
On Saturday 25 January 2014 14:54:23 Brad Rogers did opine:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:03:14 -0500
> Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> Hello Gene,
>
> >It came from j...@eukor.com. As was noted in my initial response.
>
> Sorry, I missed that. Neither did I see the message; It got binned
> before reach
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:03:14 -0500
Gene Heskett wrote:
Hello Gene,
>It came from j...@eukor.com. As was noted in my initial response.
Sorry, I missed that. Neither did I see the message; It got binned
before reaching my MUA.
Right, normal service, etc. etc.
--
Regards _
/ )
On Saturday 25 January 2014 13:59:30 Brad Rogers did opine:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:06:36 -0500
> Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> Hello Gene,
>
> >No, here, when I enabled the html display of that poorly composed
> >message,
>
> Alex's message had no HTML? Are you sure you're talking about his
> per
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:06:36 -0500
Gene Heskett wrote:
Hello Gene,
>No, here, when I enabled the html display of that poorly composed
>message,
Alex's message had no HTML? Are you sure you're talking about his
perfectly legitimate post to the list?
--
Regards _
/ ) "The
On Saturday 25 January 2014 12:58:50 Brad Rogers did opine:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:00:56 -0500
> Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> Hello Gene,
>
> >This stuff doesn't work for mailing lists, and whom ever's bright idea
>
> What stuff? PGP Signing?
No, here, when I enabled the html display of that po
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:00:56 -0500
Gene Heskett wrote:
Hello Gene,
>This stuff doesn't work for mailing lists, and whom ever's bright idea
What stuff? PGP Signing?
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"
The public w
On Saturday 25 January 2014 11:59:17 j...@eukor.com did opine:
>
This stuff doesn't work for mailing lists, and whom ever's bright idea it
is should be unsubscribed, forthwith. If not sooner.
Cheers, Gene
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and amm
On Saturday 25 January 2014 11:57:01 Claus Assmann did opine:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > gpg: BAD signature from "Alex Deucher "
>
> Same here.
There's an echo in here.
>
> > If this isn't just me, any chance to get the tarball checksums in a
> > properly signed mail?
>
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:24:45 +0100
Julien Cristau wrote:
Hello Julien,
>If this isn't just me, any chance to get the tarball checksums in a
It isn't just you. I see the bad signature report too. I suspect the
reason is due to some post signing line-wrapping of the SHA256 checksum
lines.
--
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014, Julien Cristau wrote:
> gpg: BAD signature from "Alex Deucher "
Same here.
> If this isn't just me, any chance to get the tarball checksums in a
> properly signed mail?
Hmm, maybe it would be a good idea to have signed tar files
(on the server)?
___
Hi Alex,
When trying to verify this message, I get
gpg: BAD signature from "Alex Deucher "
:(
If this isn't just me, any chance to get the tarball checksums in a
properly signed mail?
Thanks,
Julien
___
xorg@lists.x.org: X.Org support
Archives: http://
14 matches
Mail list logo
