From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 10.204.137.132 with SMTP id w4cs158857bkt; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.87.68 with SMTP id x46mr1189548wee.145.1271250281488; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from rubyforge.org (rubyforge.org [205.234.109.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c33si876284wbc.62.2010.04.14.06.04.41; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org designates 205.234.109.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=205.234.109.19; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org designates 205.234.109.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Received: from rubyforge.org (rubyforge.org [127.0.0.1]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01D41858328; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from entry.masanjin.net (masanjin.net [209.20.72.13]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFACC185831F for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:04:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from w by entry.masanjin.net with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O22Gb-0003Sw-De for sup-talk@rubyforge.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:04:29 -0400 From: William Morgan To: sup-talk In-reply-to: <1270981813-sup-1681@baad> References: <1270981813-sup-1681@baad> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:04:29 -0400 Message-Id: <1271250134-sup-4282@masanjin.net> User-Agent: Sup/git Subject: Re: [sup-talk] GPG (outgoing) X-BeenThere: sup-talk@rubyforge.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: User & developer discussion of Sup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Errors-To: sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Reformatted excerpts from Ian Smith's message of 2010-04-11: > In particular, I can sign (I've been testing mostly with signatures, > not encryption) using GPG, and send a message successfully; however, > while sup verifies that it thinks the signature is good, hushmail > doesn't recognize the message as having a signature (it sees > signature.asc as an attachment, but doesn't read the message as being > signed), and correspondents tell me that Enigmail flags my message as > having a bad signature. I would compare the output of sup, hushmail and enigmail on a similar message, and see if there's anything obviously different in the MIME structure. It's possible Sup is emitting something they don't like. -- William _______________________________________________ sup-talk mailing list sup-talk@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk