| gabriel rosenkoetter on Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:05:05 +0200 |
|
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 06:27:25PM -0400, Chris Beggy wrote: > Hence the FWIW, hence the grok. Feedback is feedback. Feedback to Jesse, > feedback to the gnus mailing list. Thanks for your feedback. Hokay. I thought that's what you were saying, just making sure. Did gnus actually say "bad signature" or just not verify it? What about if you pipe the message to gpg -v? > My gnus reader likes mime compliant gpg signatures and > encryption, rather than the in-line style enigmail evidently > produces. Does your mail reader handle both types equally well? > If so, what is it? Are there others that do so as well? mutt 1.4 (actually, this has been true since 1.3.2x, I think). But switching may be more irritating than not for you. gnus keeps its mail in MH-style mailboxes, right? I think it's also got a significantly different UI than mutt and, while there are mutt keybindings files floating around to make pine junkies happy, I've never head of anything similar for gnus. (In any case, if you use gnus, it's probably because you like staying in emacs for as much as possible; you may not dig having another terminal around just for mail.) Verification of RFC-compliant signatures happens automatically, verification of clear-signed messages happens either by piping to gpg -v (which I used to do, but which is ugly and doesn't show the message in a very readable format at the same time as the PGP output) or by hitting <ESC>-P (the capital P, as BJ pointed out earlier today, is important; this is much better, since it reformats the message and shows it exactly as mutt does when it auto-verifies a MIME-attached signature). -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpVGWevHZmby.pgp
|
|