Bad signature? (was Re: Length of public key?)

Wed Jul 10 11:30:01 2002

--=-yaJtySDusHcpCDC124Xw
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 10:11, Daniel Rees wrote:
[...]
> Thanks for the information - however something I have noticed is that if
> I check your signature (and a couple of others on this list), it is
> reported as "BAD". I am using Evolution 1.0.5 with gpg 1.0.6, and the

evolution's gpg support is BROKEN. support of inline pgp WILL NEVER BE
FIXED. mime will be fixed in next release (there is big brokenness, but
it works sometimes).

In my experience ximian considers gpg rather low priority and feels that
the standard is broken, so they are reluctant to change their
architecture (my opinion is that their architecture is wrong - but not
being a evo hacker I wont start that discussion again...).

So I am anxiously awaiting the kmail with PGP/MIME support to hit
Debian/sid (it's currently only in cvs), and then will probably switch
to kmail.

To summarize: please do not report 'bad' signatures if it's only
evolution saying they are bad.

cheers
-- vbi

--=20
secure email with gpg                         http://fortytwo.ch/gpg

--=-yaJtySDusHcpCDC124Xw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA9K/70wj49sl5Lcx8RAnqIAJ9Oe+GE9Hm+rd3HwNCJ7pRvgHuodwCgilzv
GBnYll2ufONiX1m4kM/r8gA=
=Wy5v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-yaJtySDusHcpCDC124Xw--