Re: GNU-PG verifying question/confusion.

[Jonas Steverud <d4jonas@dtek.chalmers.se>]

Martin Bishop <martinbishop@crosswinds.net> writes:

[...]
> My question:
> Does this means that the linux-2.3.41.tar.bz2 is no good or
> that the "sign" file is no good?

This meant that GPG couldn't find any "trust path" from a trusted key
to the keys used to sign the file. I really don't know how the "trust
path" works but <URL:http://www.gnupg.org> is a good place to start.

The signature is made using the key ("Good signature from ...") but
the question is - can you trust the key? This is what (if I'm not
mistaken - and that would be embarrassing) GPG complains about.

-- 
( GnuPG/PGP key @ www.dtek.chalmers.se/~d4jonas/    !    Wei Wu Wei    )
( U2MoL, Roleplaying, LaTeX, Emacs/Gnus, etc.       ! To Do Without Do )