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

[Daniel Rees]

On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 10:31, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> 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).
<snip>
> To summarize: please do not report 'bad' signatures if it's only
> evolution saying they are bad.

Thanks for the detail - you are quite right that it is Evolution's
fault, because manually exporting messages and verifying with "gpg
--veryify" produces a good signature when evolution reports a bad
signature.

Perhaps I should consider using a different mail user agent for the time
being. :)

-- 
Daniel Rees // e-mail: dan@dwrees.co.uk // gpg key id: 227BB64B