Problem with key showing up as expired...
David J. Weller-Fahy
dave-lists-gnupg@weller-fahy.com
Fri Aug 22 06:06:02 2003
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
I noticed that a key from a debian list member was showing up as expired
when signed messages were validated. Not sure how to figure out what's
wrong, so I figured I'd ask here.
List of keys for this person:
#v+
[dave@eeyore:~]$ gpg --list-key "Paul Johnson"
pub 1024D/D372F715 2002-05-14 Baloo Ursidae <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org>
uid Paul Johnson (Main Key) <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org>
sub 2048g/BC444D45 2002-05-14
pub 1024D/A5692B69 2003-03-11 Baloo Ursidae <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org>
uid Paul Johnson (Replacement key 3/10/03) <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org>
sub 1024g/A7B945C1 2003-03-11
pub 1024D/5A103307 2003-08-07 Paul Johnson (Mail and News) <baloo@ursine.ca>
sub 2048g/52F76818 2003-08-07 [expires: 2009-03-08]
pub 1024D/8B362A2F 2003-08-06 Paul Johnson (Mail and News) <baloo@ursine.ca>
sub 1024g/D64421EB 2003-08-06 [expires: 2009-03-09]
#v-
gpg verifying the message, and determining that the key is expired:
#v+
[dave@eeyore:~]$ gpg --verify expired.msg
gpg: Signature made Thu 07 Aug 2003 09:33:06 PM AKDT using DSA key ID 8B362A2F
gpg: Good signature from "Paul Johnson (Mail and News) <baloo@ursine.ca>"
gpg: Note: This key has expired!
Primary key fingerprint: 2C96 25E6 37D7 1E48 9253 FFED B029 6674 8B36 2A2F
#v-
Listing of the key ID that is listed when the messages was verified:
#v+
[dave@eeyore:~]$ gpg --fingerprint 8B362A2F
pub 1024D/8B362A2F 2003-08-06 Paul Johnson (Mail and News) <baloo@ursine.ca>
Key fingerprint = 2C96 25E6 37D7 1E48 9253 FFED B029 6674 8B36 2A2F
sub 1024g/D64421EB 2003-08-06 [expires: 2009-03-09]
#v-
gpg version information.
#v+
[dave@eeyore:~]$ gpg --version
gpg (GnuPG) 1.2.2
Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions. See the file COPYING for details.
Home: ~/.gnupg
Supported algorithms:
Pubkey: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA, ELG
Cipher: 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH
Hash: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA256
Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB
#v-
The particular message (since it would be difficult to duplicate without
a signed message) is attached.
The machine is an Athlon T-Bird 1GHz running Debian Testing (updated a
few days ago). Basically, I'm looking for ways to determine if this is
a GnuPG problem, or not. If any information that was not included would
be useful, please let me know on the list as I've just subscribed.
Regards,
--
David J. Weller-Fahy | 'These are the questions that kept me out
largely at innocent dot com | of the really *good* schools.'
www dot weller-fahy dot com | - One of The Group
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="expired.msg"
>From bounce-debian-user=dave-lists-debian=weller-fahy.com@lists.debian.org Thu Aug 7 21:34:28 2003
Return-Path: <bounce-debian-user=dave-lists-debian=weller-fahy.com@lists.debian.org>
Delivered-To: dave-lists-debian@weller-fahy.com
Received: (qmail 13141 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2003 05:34:28 -0000
Received: from murphy.debian.org (146.82.138.6)
by 0 with SMTP; 8 Aug 2003 05:34:28 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id BC4B71F82C; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 00:33:37 -0500 (CDT)
Old-Return-Path: <baloo@ursine.ca>
Received: from ursine.ca (12-225-228-197.client.attbi.com [12.225.228.197])
by murphy.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9941FCC0
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 2003 00:33:03 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from baloo by ursine.ca with local (Exim 4.20)
id 19kzsA-0000HB-P9
for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:33:06 -0700
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:33:06 -0700
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Challenge-response mail filters considered harmful (was Re: Look at
Message-ID: <20030808053306.GK25497@ursine.ca>
Mail-Followup-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
References: <20030806161003.GA802@earthlink.net> <20030806171013.6e644817.sl@eskimo.com> <87n0em1k0p.fsf@wesley.springies.com> <20030806182803.22fef4ac.sl@eskimo.com> <20030807110517.GH24140@ursine.ca> <20030807115717.057c9282.grey@dmiyu.org> <20030808040510.GT25497@ursine.ca> <20030807214356.643acaec.grey@dmiyu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-action=pgp-signed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030807214356.643acaec.grey@dmiyu.org>
Organization: Ursine System
X-Operating-System-Uptime: 22:30:06 up 12:15, 4 users, load average: 0.05, 0.07, 0.03
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
From: Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca>
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.9 required=4.0
tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,PGP_SIGNATURE,
QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.55-lists.debian.org_2003_07_19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55-lists.debian.org_2003_07_19 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
Resent-Message-ID: <1RrnBB.A.0fG.xYzM_@murphy>
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/293091
X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-user.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 00:33:37 -0500 (CDT)
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1813
Lines: 52
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:43:56PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > USENET was designed as a replacement to listservs. Given the origin,
> > lost functionality, and it's about as effective as C-R for reducing
> > spam, munging is considered harmful.
>
> No functionality is lost, I get protection from spam, verification that
> they have harvested spam and the fact that it harms no one, sorry, ain't
> changing my tune.
You don't get protection from spam. If humans can decode it, so can
the spammers. If humans can't decode it, you're voiding functionality
needlessly.
> > http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
> "Additional Hassle for You
> In addition, you will have some hassle trying to juggle your munged and
> non-munged addresses, trying to remember which to use for each occasion, and
> having to set it back and forth."
>
> No extra hassle, it is essentially the same address.
If you hit reply and have to change the address, that's needless hassle.
> Yes, but that doesn't mean that the tool should be ignored.
Yes, I agree. Munging isn't a tool as much as it's garbage, however.
However, what you are doing is not munging. You just have an extra
mailbox for crap that you (hopefully) check before reporting and
deleting.
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca>
: :' : proud Debian admin and user
`. `'`
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/MzYSsClmdIs2Ki8RAv1IAJ9R/oWrpbFWn5odxfbW93IhPJb4mwCfeEjd
g8jPAcup9OANmtJvY9MdQTA=
=RZQp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--vkogqOf2sHV7VnPd--