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

Re: GnuPG & mutt on Woody 3.0r2.



Incoming from s. keeling:
> Incoming from Thomas Sj?gren:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 12:35:49PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> > > > >gpg: Signature made Sun Dec 21 17:50:12 2003 MST using DSA key ID 946886AE
> > > > >gpg: BAD signature from "Trey Sizemore <trey@fastmail.fm>"
> > > 
> > > Now, from the same guy, same key, why do I get "Bad signature?"
> > 
> > Is there something different about this email compared to the one
> 
> It's entirely possible this (or the other one) is a reply via email
> whereas this (or the other one) is received via listserve.  If that's
> so, then something is mangling the message somewhere between him and
> me, and I just have to get used to that (I guess).

With help from one of the list recipients, this is now verified and
reproducible.  Something between me and those people whose keys are
determined by my copy of gpg to be "Bad signature", is mangling mail.
Specifically, that something is fixing line breaks:

-> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the ow-ner.
+> gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.

Note the last hyphen in the first line.

Mail sent to me containing lines less than (ca.) eighty chars results
in "Good signature".  Mail sent to me which includes lines longer than
(ca.) eighty chars results in "Bad signature".

   Debian Woody 3.0r2
   Mutt/1.3.28i
   Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)
   GNU Emacs 20.7.2
   GnuPG 1.0.6-4
   Procmail v3.22


-- 
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*)               http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling 
- -

Attachment: pgp38hCfi2qJd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: