| 1 |
On 2016-09-18 10:10, Ian Zimmerman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Note that it is _not_ a mutt problem: one gets the same "BAD |
| 4 |
> signature" result from a bare gpg run on the extracted message part. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I have to retract this. So far everyone who reported this runs mutt; |
| 7 |
and my evidence in the other direction, given above, is laughably wrong |
| 8 |
(the signature is not computed that way, but on trasformed data as |
| 9 |
specified by RFC 3156). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
So yes, it looks a lot like a flea. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> So, what's going on? This would seem to be a Big Deal [TM]. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Still surprised by the lack of urgency. I'm pretty much dropping |
| 16 |
everything until I can fix this. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Please *no* private Cc: on mailing lists and newsgroups |
| 20 |
Why does the arrow on Hillary signs point to the right? |
Archives