Re: GPG says bad signature when PGP reports OK
On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 03:38:52PM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 12:17:00PM +1100, Brian A May wrote:
> > (lets see if this message works...)
> >
> > When I signed a message on nexus:
> > gpg reports a bad signature when tested on snoopy and silas.
> >
> > eg, from snoopy:
> > gpg: Signature made Thu Nov 4 16:36:46 1999 EST using RSA key ID 70148CF9
> > gpg: BAD signature from "Brian May <bmay@csse.monash.edu.au>"
>
> This was a problem for me. I traced it to the rfc1991 option in
> my ~/.gnupg/options file. After removing this option the signatures are
> ok again.
/usr/doc/gpg-rsa/README.Debian.gz implies that it is required.
Not only that, I was somehow under the impression that this option
only affects signing and/or encrypting of the message. Not checking
the signature of the message. As this message was signed with PGP...
Just in case, I removed the rfc1991 option and checked the
signature again. mutt (actually gpg) reported the same error.
> Maybe this is the cause for your problems?
Don't think so.
However, thanks for your response.
What does the rfc1991 option do? I thought I once saw
documentation on its use, but now I can't find it :-(
Arhhhh... Here it is, under man gpg:
--rfc1991
Try to be more RFC1991 (PGP 2.x) compliant.
So I think it would be required.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: