Re: rfc1991: required or not? Was: Re: GPG says bad signature when PGP reports OK

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: rfc1991: required or not? Was: Re: GPG says bad signature when PGP reports OK
From: Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Date: 19 Nov 1999 09:32:45 +1100
Message-id: <84k8nfig6q.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au>
In-reply-to: pvaneynd@debian.org's message of "18 Nov 99 10:41:26 GMT"
References: <19991105121659.A1494@nexus.dgs.monash.edu.au> <19991118114126.D552@mail.inthan.be>

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@debian.org> writes:

    Peter> ~/tmp$ gpg --clearsign --rfc1991 < t | gpg --verify

That command works for me...

    Peter> You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for user:
    Peter> "Peter Van Eynde (Lisper) <pvaneynd@debian.org>" 1024-bit
    Peter> DSA key, ID 4B729625, created 1999-09-09

However, I have an RSA key (ie PGP). So maybe rfc1991 is broken
unless you use a RSA key?
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: rfc1991: required or not? Was: Re: GPG says bad signature when PGP reports OK
  - From: brian moore <bem@cmc.net>

References:
- GPG says bad signature when PGP reports OK
  - From: Brian A May <bmay@dgs.monash.edu.au>
- rfc1991: required or not? Was: Re: GPG says bad signature when PGP reports OK
  - From: Peter Van Eynde <pvaneynd@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: why does start-stop-daemon not support --chgid ?
Next by Date: Re: [NEWS] status of boot-flopppies
Previous by thread: rfc1991: required or not? Was: Re: GPG says bad signature when PGP reports OK
Next by thread: Re: rfc1991: required or not? Was: Re: GPG says bad signature when PGP reports OK
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread