non ascii armor file sigs

Jacob Perkins jap1 at
Wed Dec 11 20:02:02 CET 2002

On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 11:00, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 09:59:55AM -0600, Jacob Perkins wrote:
> > I'm using gpgme-0.3.14 (seahorse) to do the sigs, and it will verify
> > both fine.
> It occurs to me to wonder whether this is the problem, because
> your signatures to this list are currently coming up as "BAD".

I was just wondering why that is, but it is completely unrelated to
seahorse & gpgme since I'm using evolution 1.2.0 for email.  If anyone
knows why, please let me know.

Anyway, I just want to confirm this: gpg expects all armored files to
end in .asc, and non armored to end in .sig for signaturues or .gpg for
encrypted files?

Jacob Perkins <jap1 at>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20021211/92cbc652/attachment.bin

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list