Michael F. Robbins on Thu, 25 Apr 2002 02:22:34 -0400


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] Re: Mutt & Pine & GnuPG & Mental Health 

On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 01:09, Darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> I don't know if your mailreader will pick up the chunk of signed text
> at the top, but anything that attempts to validate it should tell you
> it has a bad signature.  If you replace the word "modified" with "some",
> then the signature should be valid.

Evolution recognizes that the signature is bad.  It says:
This message is digitally signed but can not be proven to be authentic.
gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
gpg: armor header: Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
gpg: Signature made Thu Apr 25 01:05:53 2002 EDT using DSA key ID 0E9FF879
gpg: BAD signature from "Darxus <Darxus@ChaosReigns.com>"

But then again, the followup message from Ian also reports:
This message is digitally signed but can not be proven to be authentic.
gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
gpg: armor header: Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
gpg: Signature made Thu Apr 25 01:18:46 2002 EDT using DSA key ID
19BC76F8
gpg: BAD signature from "Ian Reinhart Geiser (geiseri)
<geiseri@yahoo.com>"

Michael F. Robbins
mike@gamerack.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part