From lurker-index@localhost Fri Sep 23 08:06:17 2016 Return-Path: Received: from lin16.mojsite.com (178.218.164.164:993) by g0n.xdwgrp with IMAP4-SSL; 23 Sep 2016 06:06:17 -0000 Envelope-to: miro.rovis@croatiafidelis.hr Delivery-date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 04:32:55 +0200 Received: from shtjevan.gbnet.net ([194.70.142.36]:45841 helo=gbnet.net) by lin16.mojsite.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1bmtof-0005Y5-FI for miro.rovis@croatiafidelis.hr; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 04:32:49 +0200 Received: (qmail 16167 invoked by uid 611); 22 Sep 2016 02:29:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 16124 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2016 02:28:58 -0000 Received: from davin.gbnet.net (194.70.142.37) by shtjevan.gbnet.net with ESMTPS (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted); 22 Sep 2016 02:28:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 18976 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2016 02:28:37 -0000 Received: from mail-1.fido.net (84.246.192.5) by davin.gbnet.net with ESMTPS (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted); 22 Sep 2016 02:28:37 -0000 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([70.36.157.240]) by mail-1.fido.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bmtkY-00055X-9L for mutt-users@mutt.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 03:28:36 +0100 Received: from x2.esmtp.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (MeTA1-1.1.Alpha6.1) with ESMTPS (TLS=TLSv1.2, cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384, bits=256, verify=OK) id S000000000020E3E800; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:28:31 -0700 Received: (from ca@localhost) by x2.esmtp.org (8.14.6/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id u8M2SVvs024262 for mutt-users@mutt.org; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:28:31 -0700 From: Claus Assmann To: mutt-users@mutt.org Subject: Re: PGP sigs fail verification Message-ID: <20160922022831.GA25530@x2.esmtp.org> Reply-To: mutt-users@mutt.org Mail-Followup-To: mutt-users@mutt.org References: <20160917232509.GK31239@g0n.xdwgrp> <20160918051503.GO31239@g0n.xdwgrp> <20160918061803.4077.03047CF5@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> <20160918064328.ts37vzdr6ehds6ln@lovelace.schplaf> <20160921104046.GD1147@adversary.org> <20160921213236.GD24944@dragontoe.org> <20160921214124.GA46901@aura.veggiechinese.net> <20160922014629.20730.16A6B720@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160922014629.20730.16A6B720@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+24 (4de4b3635140) (2015-08-30) X-Filter-ID: s0sct1PQhAABKnZB5plbIZkPdBLoI4rpXXVukOUKyiwMVK2FFy+TmYeRnjy88I2+Wywi3RPeT3mN b5O6yuT+gUzCN0WZSl7cguNkLbh+Ux309qCWqNzocZwcIGp6lcxjZuB+2KJsO3GXVz1P8nrkgH/Y OtGqTc2vmMYcR172Ttilf9FHzkAWuSdBA6ZpRK+22EpgsNVL5BgQIkhMwiP8ixTiShiQf4btBMQm 9mbJYbhHdf4sa3NJ0gPhyOPChr2RCPDKTo6I/NU7fcDpocXu30WEJkIe7Jsq+y0ys/Cptw493SsS 4aMXJmiJ2G0eb5ahfy36Q0y4/ZIEpZ88QYwZ3dh9k/7+ezSIkKvuiCmTMO+fisJCU7/dqfyyzLJt i/St7g6G2ujZu0ohb8Ar3zd3CjHYLyvT6f3Q+BmtUtn7AtuSI+TcSDcfdFUrIheeFYvGqwDRBfGc CitSyoubPUw2INkjyzby4idWI9QDpJuVzLDOJQqAY3yHWg7XcwqMuTIFpl8rF453rlG/1n4zSXbJ j8Z5HU9lWzY9IEW/lO31ercxL7hrJSk60SF3F6RYOYr2 X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@master.fido.net X-FidoGuard-Class: ham X-FidoGuard-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@mutt.org, body only "unsubscribe mutt-users" Precedence: bulk Sender: owner-mutt-users@mutt.org X-PlusHosting-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-PlusHosting-MailScanner-ID: 1bmtof-0005Y5-FI X-PlusHosting-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-PlusHosting-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-6.299, required 5, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -5.00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS 0.00, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1.00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.30) X-PlusHosting-MailScanner-From: owner-mutt-users-m24770@mutt.org X-Spam-Status: No X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: =?utf-8?q?INBOX?= On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > 1. Some (apparently genuine) mails fail with "BAD signature", _both_ > when reading through mutt and when verifying manually with gpg. This is Please provide examples so others can check your findings (compare the tar file I sent out -- it shows that adding an X-Header causes a signature failure). > 2. In _one_ case only so far, the same mail checks out with manual gpg, > but mutt gives "BAD signature". This is clearly a flea, but I have no See above: please provide the mail which exhibits this problem. It would be nice if we can track down the problem(s), but we need examples to reproduce the errors.