Re: apt-get and signatures couldn't be verified etc

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 01:52:52PM +1000, Fred 1 wrote: > > vagrant@buster:/mnt/debian_build/apt-1.8.2.3$ ls -ld /var/lib/apt > /var/lib/apt/lists /var/lib/apt/lists/partial > drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 Aug 17 04:22 /var/lib/apt > drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Aug 18 01:12 /var/lib/apt/lists > drwx

Re: apt-get and signatures couldn't be verified etc

vagrant@buster:/mnt/debian_build/apt-1.8.2.3$ ls -ld /var/lib/apt /var/lib/apt/lists /var/lib/apt/lists/partial drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 Aug 17 04:22 /var/lib/apt drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Aug 18 01:12 /var/lib/apt/lists drwx-- 2 _apt root 4096 Aug 18 01:12 /var/lib/apt/lists/partial

Re: apt-get and signatures couldn't be verified etc

17 07:10 /var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ > W: GPG error: http://deb.debian.org/debian stable InRelease: The following > signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: > NO_PUBKEY 04EE7237B7D453EC NO_PUBKEY 648ACFD622F3D138 NO_PUBKEY > DCC9EFBF77E11517 > E:

apt-get and signatures couldn't be verified etc

ease' couldn't be accessed by user '_apt'. - pkgAcquire::Run (13: Permission denied) W: GPG error: http://deb.debian.org/debian stable InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 04EE7237B7D453

Re: Linux-Fan's bad signatures

art of the signature. [...] So if the signature is in "signature.asc" and the content between the separator lines are in file "content.txt" this command should verify it: gpg --verify signature.asc content.txt It seems that the signatures are made with "gpg --textmod

Re: Linux-Fan's bad signatures

n the separator lines are in file "content.txt" this command should verify it: gpg --verify signature.asc content.txt It seems that the signatures are made with "gpg --textmode" so that it doesn't matter if the content has LF or CR + LF newlines. Your "sent" and

[OT] Linux-Fan's bad signatures (Re: Encrypt files on Linux, decrypt on Windows)

Teemu Likonen writes: * 2020-08-21 20:24:29+02, Linux-Fan wrote: > GPG should also run on Windows, but is a little harder to use IMHO. GnuPG it is pretty hard everywhere. Your recent signatures are reported as "bad" (at least by Notmuch and Mutt). The signed data (message) doesn

Re: Unable to verify 64-bit live ISO signature / How to download signatures

Hi, sorry for carrying the subject line from one thread to the other. (At least they are closely related ...) Have a nice day :) Thomas

Re: How to download signatures

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 08:15:38 + sebarosa...@protonmail.com wrote: > Thank you for the very fast response to my first question! Right now, > I am trying to download the sha256sums and the sha256sums.sign, but > clicking on them only seems to open the contents of the file, and not > download it.

How to download signatures

Thank you for the very fast response to my first question! Right now, I am trying to download the sha256sums and the sha256sums.sign, but clicking on them only seems to open the contents of the file, and not download it. I am unsure if I am doing the right thing.

Re: Verifying Digital Signatures

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 07:17:36 +0300 Teemu Likonen wrote: > HP Garcia [2018-06-11 20:33:50-07] wrote: > > > Thanks everyone I finally got it to work. > > What did you do? What was the problem? We have given our time to help > you so it would be kind to document the solution here so that everyon

Re: Verifying Digital Signatures

HP Garcia [2018-06-11 20:33:50-07] wrote: > Thanks everyone I finally got it to work. What did you do? What was the problem? We have given our time to help you so it would be kind to document the solution here so that everyone can learn. -- /// Teemu Likonen - .-..

Re: Verifying Digital Signatures

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:07:38 -0700 HP Garcia wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:39:29 +0200 > john doe wrote: > > > On 6/11/2018 8:32 AM, john doe wrote: > > > On 6/11/2018 7:43 AM, HP Garcia wrote: > > >> I'm following the steps to verify kernel sig

Re: Verifying Digital Signatures

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:39:29 +0200 john doe wrote: > On 6/11/2018 8:32 AM, john doe wrote: > > On 6/11/2018 7:43 AM, HP Garcia wrote: > >> I'm following the steps to verify kernel signatures using GNUpg. > >> I'm following the directions from

Re: Verifying Digital Signatures

On 6/11/2018 8:32 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/11/2018 7:43 AM, HP Garcia wrote: I'm following the steps to verify kernel signatures using GNUpg. I'm following the directions from https://www.kernel.org/category/signatures.html. Where I am getting stumped is verifying the tar against the

Re: Verifying Digital Signatures

john doe wrote: > Are the keys in your keyring?: obviously not

Re: Verifying Digital Signatures

On 6/11/2018 7:43 AM, HP Garcia wrote: I'm following the steps to verify kernel signatures using GNUpg. I'm following the directions from https://www.kernel.org/category/signatures.html. Where I am getting stumped is verifying the tar against the signature. linux-4.17 linux-4.17.

Re: Verifying Digital Signatures

HP Garcia [2018-06-10 22:43:33-07] wrote: > root@Ultraman:/usr/src# gpg2 --verify linux-4.17.tar.sign > gpg: assuming signed data in 'linux-4.17.tar' > gpg: Signature made Sun 03 Jun 2018 02:35:54 PM PDT > gpg:using RSA key 79BE3E4300411886 ^

Re: Verifying Digital Signatures

HP Garcia wrote: > I'm stumped. Am I missing something? > > Thanks for any advice. Go to pool.sks-keyservers.net or use it in gpg2 to access the public key. Import the key to gpg2 Proceed with verifying signature as already done. Recently pool.sks-keyservers.net become the ultimate host of publ

Verifying Digital Signatures

I'm following the steps to verify kernel signatures using GNUpg. I'm following the directions from https://www.kernel.org/category/signatures.html. Where I am getting stumped is verifying the tar against the signature. linux-4.17 linux-4.17.tar linux-4.17.tar.sign root@Ultraman:/usr

Re: W: Failed to fetch [..] The following signatures were invalid: [..]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 11:55:57 + "Cecile, Adam" wrote: Hello Adam, >Can you try with the cloudera address ? Interesting; It failed here too. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" No rotten apple's gonna spoil my

RE: W: Failed to fetch [..] The following signatures were invalid: [..]

12:58:42 À : Debian Users ML Objet : Re: W: Failed to fetch [..] The following signatures were invalid: [..] On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:00:50 + "Cecile, Adam" wrote: Hello Adam, >Reading apt's manpage shows that [trused=yes] in sources.list is >supposed to bypass apt-secure.

Re: W: Failed to fetch [..] The following signatures were invalid: [..]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 08:00:50 + "Cecile, Adam" wrote: Hello Adam, >Reading apt's manpage shows that [trused=yes] in sources.list is >supposed to bypass apt-secure. Problem is: it does not. Adding this It does here. My source line; deb [trusted=yes] file:/home/brad/Data/Debian/ binary/ --

RE: W: Failed to fetch [..] The following signatures were invalid: [..]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard Envoyé : samedi 19 août 2017 09:49:00 À : Debian users Objet : Re: W: Failed to fetch [..] The following signatures were invalid: [..] Adam Cecile: > Since I upgraded to Stretch I get the following warning when running > apt update: > >> W: Failed to fetch &g

Re: W: Failed to fetch [..] The following signatures were invalid: [..]

Adam Cecile: Since I upgraded to Stretch I get the following warning when running apt update: W: Failed to fetch http://archive.cloudera.com/cdh5/debian/jessie/amd64/cdh/dists/jessie-cdh5/InRelease The following signatures were invalid:F36A89E33CC1BD0F71079007327574EE02A818DD What the

Re: W: Failed to fetch [..] The following signatures were invalid: [..]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 08:57:44AM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote: Hello, Since I upgraded to Stretch I get the following warning when running apt update: W: Failed to fetch http://archive.cloudera.com/cdh5/debian/jessie/amd64/cdh/dists/jessie-cdh5/InRelease The following signatures were invalid

W: Failed to fetch [..] The following signatures were invalid: [..]

Hello, Since I upgraded to Stretch I get the following warning when running apt update: W: Failed to fetch http://archive.cloudera.com/cdh5/debian/jessie/amd64/cdh/dists/jessie-cdh5/InRelease The following signatures were invalid: F36A89E33CC1BD0F71079007327574EE02A818DD The sources.list

Re: Missing signatures for installer checksums

On Thu 16 Jun 2016 at 13:04:35 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Sarah writes: > > Figuring out how to file the bug report isn't a problem. The problem > > is I don't know what component is responsible for generating either > > the existing checksum files or the .sign files for the ISOs. > > Then file

Re: Missing signatures for installer checksums

Sarah writes: > Figuring out how to file the bug report isn't a problem. The problem > is I don't know what component is responsible for generating either > the existing checksum files or the .sign files for the ISOs. Then file the bug against your best guess as to the culprit. The maintainer wil

Re: Missing signatures for installer checksums

n't know what component is responsible for generating either the existing checksum files or the .sign files for the ISOs. I guess it could be filed as a "general" bug https://bugs.debian.org/general if nobody knows where it should really be filed. >>> On 06/15/2016 10:58 P

Re: Missing signatures for installer checksums

rrectly with everything debian expects. No local MTA needed for reportbug. Use 'smtphost bugs.debian.org' in the configuration file. > >On 06/15/2016 10:58 PM, Sarah Newman wrote: > >> > >>Are the signatures somewhere else, and if not where should a bug be filed? There

Re: Missing signatures for installer checksums

: Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:36:32 From: Leon.37428 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Missing signatures for installer checksums Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 03:36:53 + (UTC) Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org On 06/15/2016 10:58 PM, Sarah Newman wrote: For CDs there is the

Re: Missing signatures for installer checksums

true for versions > other than wheezy. > > Are the signatures somewhere else, and if not where should a bug be filed? > > Thanks, Sarah > There seems to be none, oddly enough. You may want to check out this page: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting I think there are also

Missing signatures for installer checksums

/debian/dists/wheezy/main/installer-amd64/current/images/SHA256SUMS but there is no matching https://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/dists/wheezy/main/installer-amd64/current/images/SHA256SUMS.sign . This is also true for versions other than wheezy. Are the signatures somewhere else, and if not where

Re: Digital signatures

Anthony Mapes [2015-12-27 09:03:22-05] wrote: > I do have one question about the MIME version, though. I've seen > mailing lists that add a footer to each message (in the form of a > signature). With inline PGP, this footer gets appended after the > signature block, and everything is wonderful. Wo

Re: Digital signatures

On 12/27/2015 02:59 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote: > > If we change the subject to digital signatures I think that having the > signature in a separate MIME part is the modern way. You had the PGP > signature in the body of the message (and it's fine with me and my mail > clien

Digital signatures

Anthony Mapes [2015-12-24 10:38:28-05] wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > While we're on the topic of signatures, what do you consider to be > good and bad to include in signatures? If we change the subject to digital signatures I think that havin

Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:38:28AM -0500, Anthony Mapes wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > While we're on the topic of signatures, what do you consider to be good > and bad to include in signatures? Very amusing! You've made my day. :)

Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:38:28 -0500, Anthony Mapes wrote: > (Are there email clients out there that don't display who the sender > was?) If such a mail client exists, its users should not be forgiven.

Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

On Thu, Dec 24 2015,The Wanderer wrote: > On 2015-12-24 at 07:37, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 23 2015,The Wanderer wrote: >> >> [snipped 32 lines] > > This is standard practice; you don't usually need to indicate that > you've snipped at all (except maybe by leaving a blank line i

Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 While we're on the topic of signatures, what do you consider to be good and bad to include in signatures? I've seen a lot of conflicting opinions online, particularly surrounding whether or not to include your email address. (Are t

OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

On 2015-12-24 at 07:37, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23 2015,The Wanderer wrote: > > [snipped 32 lines] This is standard practice; you don't usually need to indicate that you've snipped at all (except maybe by leaving a blank line in between the quoted bits where the snip was), much

Re: [OT] Signatures and Sensibilities (was: pulseaudio configuration question)

On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 14:58 +, Camaleón wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:24:46 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > (...) > > > What the hell has this to do with "pulseaudio configuration question"? > > Said finally the user who has not given a single hint on how to solve the > problem of the OP >

[OT] Signatures and Sensibilities (was: pulseaudio configuration question)

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:24:46 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: (...) > What the hell has this to do with "pulseaudio configuration question"? Said finally the user who has not given a single hint on how to solve the problem of the OP >;-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian

Re: Signatures (was: Panning the screen to get an usable GNOME desktop in netbooks)

On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 02:10:37PM +, Camaleón wrote: > I had to remove 33 lines of wasted text coming from your GPG code and > your extra-large signature :-) Consider using something like t-prot, which does this automatically, or most PGP-aware mailers, which will decode the signature, verif

Re: Signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 05.05.2012 18:57, Camaleón kirjoitti: > Learning the basics of html won't hurt and you'll find it's easy > peasy and very peaceful. I have that on my todo list :). - -- Mika Suomalainen gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 4DB53CFE82A

Re: Signatures

El 2012-05-05 a las 12:43 -0400, Henning Follmann escribió: > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:57:22PM +, Camaleón wrote: > > On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:37:33 +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > OMG, can you two get a room already? I'm not sleepy, but thanks for taking care of my health. Sigh. @Mika:

Re: Signatures

On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:37:33 +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 05.05.2012 18:31, Camaleón kirjoitti: >>> OK, so I will just use free SEO, which mailing lists give me with the >>> help of Google bot until the next [OT: Posting styles] or similar >>> discussion comes :). >> >> He, he... fine. >> >

Re: Signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 05.05.2012 18:31, Camaleón kirjoitti: > On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:22:02 +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > >> 05.05.2012 17:56, Camaleón kirjoitti: >>> Looks good but you don't have to give an explanation on the way >>> you post your messages. If some asks

Re: Signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 05.05.2012 17:13, Mika Suomalainen kirjoitti: > 05.05.2012 17:10, Camaleón kirjoitti: >> On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:32:14 +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > >>> 05.05.2012 16:22, Camaleón kirjoitti: P.S. Mika, kindly reconsider reducing the length of y

Re: Signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 05.05.2012 17:10, Camaleón kirjoitti: > On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:32:14 +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > >> 05.05.2012 16:22, Camaleón kirjoitti: >>> P.S. Mika, kindly reconsider reducing the length of your >>> signature. >> >> That is something what I

Signatures (was: Panning the screen to get an usable GNOME desktop in netbooks)

On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:32:14 +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 05.05.2012 16:22, Camaleón kirjoitti: >> P.S. Mika, kindly reconsider reducing the length of your signature. > > That is something what I need with. (...) Fine, fine.. but better if you trim your signature or use a different method

Re: Mutt and HTML signatures

>>:-) >> > Is there any way to use HTML signatures with Mutt? More than 10 years >> > that I use Mutt and I would not like having to change it just for >> > this. I tried using a signature file with HTML code, but after >> > reviewing the receipt of the me

Re: Mutt and HTML signatures

da :-D > > I hope this is not the way to the dark side... > >>> Is there any way to use HTML signatures with Mutt? More than 10 >>> years that I use Mutt and I would not like having to change it just >>> for this. I tried using a signature file with HTML cod

Re: Mutt and HTML signatures

gt; > in the signature. It seemed more a psychological than a real > > problem... > I feel your pain :-) You sound like Master Yoda :-D I hope this is not the way to the dark side... > > Is there any way to use HTML signatures with Mutt? More than 10 > > years that I use

Re: Mutt and HTML signatures

e. It seemed more a psychological than a real problem... I feel your pain :-) > Is there any way to use HTML signatures with Mutt? More than 10 years > that I use Mutt and I would not like having to change it just for this. > I tried using a signature file with HTML code, but after revi

Re: Mutt and HTML signatures

an a real problem... And the psychology of it is producing the opposite problem of propagating the use of html for email which I find very undesirable. > Is there any way to use HTML signatures with Mutt? More than 10 years > that I use Mutt and I would not like having to change it just for

Mutt and HTML signatures

y way to use HTML signatures with Mutt? More than 10 years that I use Mutt and I would not like having to change it just for this. I tried using a signature file with HTML code, but after reviewing the receipt of the message, HTML code is seen rather than rendering. Thanks in advance. Regards, D

Re: GPG error: debian-multimedia: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 2

during the signature verification. The > repository is not updated and the previous index files will be > used. GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org squeeze > Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 2 > > W: A error occurred dur

GPG error: debian-multimedia: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 2

vious index files will be used. GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org squeeze Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 2 W: A error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is not updated and the previous index files wi

libmcrypt-dev: char* function signatures

that is just by oversight. If it is feasible to change the signatures to `const char *`, it would make wrapping the library in a C++ class much easier, since it would allow using standard C++ idioms (like std::string::c_str()) rather than cumbersome copies to writeable memory or using C-style a

Re: Re: GPG error: http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release: The following signatures were invalid: BADSIG A70DAF536070D3A1

Hi, It seems like this solved it for me: apt-get -f update ++Tim Hinnerk Heuer++ Website: http://www.ihostnz.com - Free Hosting! Blog: http://timheuer.com/hinnerk

Re: `W: GPG error: http://www.backports.org lenny-backports Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY EA8E8B2116BA136C'

Camaleón wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:09:56 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > > >> Using apt-get's GUI, I receive >> >> == >> `W: GPG error: http://www.backports.org lenny-backports Release: The >> following signatures couldn't be verified beca

Re: `W: GPG error: http://www.backports.org lenny-backports Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY EA8E8B2116BA136C'

Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Ma, 29 iun 10, 12:09:56, Merciadri Luca wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Using apt-get's GUI, I receive >> > > There is no apt-get GUI, do you mean aptitude? > > >> == >> `W: GPG error: http://www.backpor

Re: `W: GPG error: http://www.backports.org lenny-backports Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY EA8E8B2116BA136C'

On Ma, 29 iun 10, 12:09:56, Merciadri Luca wrote: > Hi, > > Using apt-get's GUI, I receive There is no apt-get GUI, do you mean aptitude? > == > `W: GPG error: http://www.backports.org lenny-backports Release: The > following signatures couldn't be verified b

Re: `W: GPG error: http://www.backports.org lenny-backports Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY EA8E8B2116BA136C'

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:09:56 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > Using apt-get's GUI, I receive > > == > `W: GPG error: http://www.backports.org lenny-backports Release: The > following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not > available: NO_PUBKEY E

Re: SOLVED: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 07:33:11AM +, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > Why not run explicitly: > > env LC_ALL=C gpg [whatever] Good idea, I think I'll do so. Thank you! -- Regards, Alexander Batischev 1024D/69093C81 F870 A381 B5F5 D2A1 1B35 4D63 A1A7 1C77 6909 3C81 signature.asc Description: Di

Re: SOLVED: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 10:04:32PM +0300, Alexander Batischev wrote: > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 04:11:20PM +, Camaleón wrote: > > (...) > > > > You can launch Mutt in debug mode (mutt -d 3), so it logs any message to > > "~/.muttdebug0". > > That's the first thing one should think about if so

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 09:25:31AM -0400, Rob Owens wrote: > Hey, I just noticed that there are 2 different keys for you on the public key > server. Are you sure you're using the right one to verify the > signatures? Yes, there are two keys - old one and new one. Unfortunatel

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 09:22:45AM -0400, Rob Owens wrote: > (...) > > If this problem started when you imported your private key, then maybe > that was not done correctly. Is there a step that needs to be taken > besides simply importing? (I don't know the answer to that). I think that now,

SOLVED: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 04:11:20PM +, Camaleón wrote: > (...) > > You can launch Mutt in debug mode (mutt -d 3), so it logs any message to > "~/.muttdebug0". That's the first thing one should think about if something doesn't work properly, but I forgot about it... Thank you very much, Camale

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:52:54 +0300, Alexander Batischev wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:39:58PM +, Camaleón wrote: (...) >> Well, what we are testing here (by using another e-mail client) is GPG >> and your keyring configuration, so you better try with a GUI e-mail >> client that uses th

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

I didn't have secure key so I did not sign my messages, just verify > other's. > Hey, I just noticed that there are 2 different keys for you on the public key server. Are you sure you're using the right one to verify the signatures? -Rob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 08:48:09PM +0300, Alexander Batischev wrote: > I'm using mutt for about a month already. Almost all problems already solved, > I > successfully moved to IMAP. It's time to get GPG signing to work. > > As you probably noticed, all my messages are signed. But when I open any

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:39:58PM +, Camaleón wrote: > > Better than before, but mutt still claims "signature can NOT be > > verified"… > > Still? From where are you getting that "not verified" message? From > Mutt's pager? Yes, mutt's pager. Message appears at the very bottom of the s

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 00:09:30 +0300, Alexander Batischev wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:59:23PM +, Camaleón wrote: >> Then maybe is that you have to "explicitely" import the key and trust >> that key. Did you already do that? :-? > > Well, okay, I set trust for my key to 5 (absolute) and

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

Done a little more research: I used lsign (local sign) command and signed Andrei Popescu's key. Then I set full trust for it. After that, mutt showed me message like that one showed in previous post: just two lines saying sign is correct. But mutt still says that sign can not be verified! I definit

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:59:23PM +, Camaleón wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:37:57 +0300, Alexander Batischev wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:21:14PM +, Camale??n wrote: > > >> In order to verify a signed message, either you have to previosuly > >> import the key into your keyri

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:37:57 +0300, Alexander Batischev wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:21:14PM +, Camale??n wrote: >> In order to verify a signed message, either you have to previosuly >> import the key into your keyring or you need to setup Mutt to retrieve >> the key from public server

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 06:21:14PM +, Camale??n wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:03:22 +0300, Alexander Batischev wrote: > > > Some thoughts which just came to my head: can it be because of lack of > > trusted keys? I did not set anyone's key as trusted, so I don't have web > > of trust. This s

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:03:22 +0300, Alexander Batischev wrote: > Some thoughts which just came to my head: can it be because of lack of > trusted keys? I did not set anyone's key as trusted, so I don't have web > of trust. This still don't explain (in my opinion, at least) why my own > signature c

Re: Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

Some thoughts which just came to my head: can it be because of lack of trusted keys? I did not set anyone's key as trusted, so I don't have web of trust. This still don't explain (in my opinion, at least) why my own signature can't be verified. -- Regards, Alexander Batischev 1024D/69093C81 F870

Mutt and GPG - claims ALL signatures can't be verified

I'm using mutt for about a month already. Almost all problems already solved, I successfully moved to IMAP. It's time to get GPG signing to work. As you probably noticed, all my messages are signed. But when I open any--even my own!--message, mutt tells me that PGP signature can NOT be verified. W

Re: GPG error: http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release: The following signatures were invalid: BADSIG A70DAF536070D3A1

.org etch/updates Release: The following signatures > > > were invalid: BADSIG A70DAF536070D3A1 Debian Archive Automatic Signing > > > Key (4.0/etch) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>W: You may want to run apt-get update > > > to correct these problems"> > [...]> &g

RE: GPG error: http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release: The following signatures were invalid: BADSIG A70DAF536070D3A1

> > I run 'apt-get update' and it throws an error:> > > > W: GPG error: > > http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release: The following signatures > > were invalid: BADSIG A70DAF536070D3A1 Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key > > (4.0/etch) <

Re: GPG error: http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release: The following signatures were invalid: BADSIG A70DAF536070D3A1

On 07/09/2008 01:08 PM, Chris Morley wrote: Hi, this morning i was unable to run apt-get update on any of my etch boxes. I run 'apt-get update' and it throws an error: W: GPG error: http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release: The following signatures were inval

GPG error: http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release: The following signatures were invalid: BADSIG A70DAF536070D3A1

Hi, this morning i was unable to run apt-get update on any of my etch boxes. I run 'apt-get update' and it throws an error: W: GPG error: http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release: The following signatures were invalid: BADSIG A70DAF536070D3A1 Debian Archive Automatic Signin

Re: spamassassin and signatures

On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 15:35 +0200, Pol Hallen wrote: > 1) Have you done a script for update the signatures of spamassassin? If you're just trying to get the latest score-files for SpamAssassin, you get those automatically with each new SpamAssassin version from Debian. You don'

spamassassin and signatures

Hi folsk :-) I've two questions: 1) Have you done a script for update the signatures of spamassassin? and 2) Is it usual (after an update of today) that the dir of signatures, has date febraury 25? thanks :-) Pol -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "u

Re: mutt signatures

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:32:20 -0400 James Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello James, > What package/software do you use to rotate signatures in email? I use Like Jochen I use signify, which is in the Debian repositories. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindin

Re: mutt signatures

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:32:20PM -0400, James Richardson wrote: > > What package/software do you use to rotate signatures in email? I use mutt. > I use a technique I learnt from somebody else on the Debian list long ago: I have installed the package 'verse' and then use

Re: mutt signatures

James Richardson: > > What package/software do you use to rotate signatures in email? I use mutt. I have used signify for years. J. -- Looking into my eyes is the only way you'll know I'm telling the truth. [Agree] [Disagree] <http://www.slowlydownward.com

Re: mutt signatures

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:46:16PM -0400, James Richardson wrote: > Martin Kraus wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:32:20PM -0400, James Richardson wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > What package/software do you use to rotate signatures in email? I use > >

Re: mutt signatures

Martin Kraus wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:32:20PM -0400, James Richardson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > What package/software do you use to rotate signatures in email? I use mutt. > > > > I googled and found a package called autosig, but it does not have a debi

Re: mutt signatures

On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:32:20PM -0400, James Richardson wrote: > Hi, > > What package/software do you use to rotate signatures in email? I use mutt. > > I googled and found a package called autosig, but it does not have a debian > package... to rotate in what way? pres

mutt signatures

Hi, What package/software do you use to rotate signatures in email? I use mutt. I googled and found a package called autosig, but it does not have a debian package... ADthanksVANCE -- James Richardson signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Signatures (was Re: typewriter function for an impact printer?)

Ron Johnson wrote: On 02/24/08 13:07, Florian Kulzer wrote: It seems to me that it is an inherent problem with inline signing: Google for "pgp dash escaping" or "pgp trailing whitespace" or something like that. [ snippage ] Interesting. I'll research that. Yup, it's the inline signing

Re: Signatures (was Re: typewriter function for an impact printer?)

his seems to make it > impossible to have the proper dash-dash-space signature delimiter in an > inline-signed message, unless there is a special escape sequence for > that. (If there is indeed one then Thunderbird does not seem to know > anything about it.) > > I think this is o

Re: Signatures (was Re: typewriter function for an impact printer?)

n to strip off trailing whitespace before checking the validity of the signature. (I have not read the relevant RFCs, but my guess would be that this is done to accommodate for the mangling of line endings that might happen with various MUAs on different operating systems.) This seems to make it im

Re: Signatures (was Re: typewriter function for an impact printer?)

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it is a side-effect of signing, because when I look at Reply > emails that I have *not* signed, they do *not* have the added "^- ". > > So, I'd take one of these emails and show it to the Gemini > developers. Who

  1   2   3   4   >