[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Evolution and GnuPG


Josselin Mouette <josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org> schrieb:
> Oliver Elphick a écrit :
> > I've noticed that Evolution (1.0-4) is very prone to report bad
> > signatures.  To start with I thought it was down to use by the sender of
> > a particular mailer, but I am beginning to doubt that.
> [sneep]
> > Do other mail clients give similar results?
> I have noticed the same problem with evolution. It reports a number of 
> GPG signatures as bad, when besides mutt reports them as good. The 
> problem includes all mails written with gnus/oort, but also some others 
> from various mailers (and I couldn't figure out which thing in the 
> headers makes it get wrong).

Same thing happens other way around: If i get an email from a
evolution-user with sylpheed (which i like as much as mutt), it is
reported as BAD, whereas mutt reports it to be fine.

I once saw a two-mails-long thread on evolution-hackers-ML, where it was
basically stated that it is sylpheed`s problem.....


GnuPG-key at www.cargal.org/interact/keys/Publotuskey.asc
"Let do what thou wilt
be the whole of the law!" A.C.

Attachment: pgpzA5T4mHHDO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: