plausibly deniable

Simon Ward simon at
Fri Jul 23 09:26:43 CEST 2010

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:03:25PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Can anyone else verify messages sent by Andre? His message claims to
> have a PGP signature, but what's in what should be the signature
> block isn't.

Mutt isn’t verifying these either. The message Content-Type appears to
be multipart/alternative, not multipart/signed. The attached signature
looks to me like an OpenPGP signature with the following comment:

  Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
  Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

I suspect it’s Daniel’s signature being forwarded, but can’t verify.

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20100723/02e77433/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list