From: wmorgan-sup@masanjin.net (William Morgan)
Subject: [sup-talk] sup/gpg
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:25:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1244485140-sup-1973@entry> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1244483397-sup-3035@cabinet>
Reformatted excerpts from Marc Hartstein's message of 2009-06-08:
> The regexp fix for messages with very long lines.
Yeah, that shouldn't change anything. Doesn't even change Sup's output!
> Yeah, it bounces me back to pinentry, where I proceeded to enter it
> correctly. It *shouldn't* produce a bad message, it was just one of
> the only things I could think of that had changed between the two
> messages which might have led to different behavior.
Except the message content, I guess. :)
> > Also you can look at encrypting messages to yourself. Are you able
> > to decrypt them reliably? If not, is there a pattern? (Non-ASCII in
> > the headers, body, etc.?)
>
> I expect this will have the same behavior as checking signatures on
> messages I send, no?
It should; I was just suggesting it as an alternative approach to
figuring out what was causing the problem. Then Ben isn't in the loop
any more and you can spend all night happily debuggin this. :)
> Ben is using gpg 1 after correspondents complained the switch to gpg 2
> caused his messages to have bad signatures.
Was he using Sup the entire time?
> I am using gpg 2.0.11
>
> I see *all* Ben's messages as having bad signatures, and see all my
> own (either in sent.mbox or bounced back to me from the list) as good.
> I also see Ben's signatures as bad when looking at the same messages
> through mutt. I see the same thing going back to his first signed
> message to sup-talk, and also in his direct emails to me.
>
> Ben sees most of my signatures as good, but has recently experienced
> an intermittent issue where my signatures are bad.
It sounds like there might be some possibility that it's a GPG version
incompatibility, though I'd be a little surprised if that were really
the case. It might be helpful if you guys could do a control experiment
with Mutt, since I have a fair amount of faith in its GPG
implementation.
--
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-08 18:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1243463452-sup-1174@cabinet>
[not found] ` <1243466444-sup-3672@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca>
[not found] ` <1243622801-sup-6484@cabinet>
[not found] ` <1243819025-sup-136@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca>
[not found] ` <1244037417-sup-8346@cabinet>
[not found] ` <1244313900-sup-578@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca>
[not found] ` <1244314253-sup-6338@cabinet>
2009-06-06 19:06 ` Ben Walton
2009-06-08 17:23 ` William Morgan
[not found] ` <1244483397-sup-3035@cabinet>
2009-06-08 18:25 ` William Morgan [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1244485140-sup-1973@entry \
--to=wmorgan-sup@masanjin.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox