Hello! Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.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..... Ciao, Steve -- www.cargal.org GnuPG-key at www.cargal.org/interact/keys/Publotuskey.asc "Let do what thou wilt be the whole of the law!" A.C.
Description: PGP signature