Many more sigs show when I add --with-colons to --list-sigs

[Walt Mankowski]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 09:09:34AM -0400, Robert J. Hansen via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > Thanks for the clarification. Are dsa1024 signatures also SHA-1
> > signatures?
> The short answer is "not necessarily, but very much usually".
> 
> DSA involves doing some complicated math on a 160-bit value. There's no
> hard requirement the value be generated by SHA-1, and GnuPG/PGP 5+
> provides RIPEMD160 as an alternative, but in reality hardly anyone uses
> RIPEMD160.

Thanks. I guess this helps explain why some of the signatures listed
by --check-sigs as usable were dsa1024, while others were unusable. My
dsa1024 signature is listed as usable on other people's keys, so I
guess that means my key doesn't use SHA-1?

Walt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/attachments/20260729/802f1002/attachment.sig>