Re: gpg/pgp noise

13.05.2012 10:26, Andrei POPESCU kirjoitti: > @Mika: > At least in my experience Mailman is NOT breaking GPG/MIME. I know of at > least 4 different Mailman installations (including > lists.alioth.debian.org) that work fine. At least it doesn't work on gnupg-user nor enigmail nor lists.ubuntu.com

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Hopefully not reigniting this... On Ma, 08 mai 12, 05:43:17, Indulekha wrote: > Hi, > > I'm getting this with most gog/pgp-signed mails received > from this list (using mutt): This part has been solved, but since it is highly unlikely for you to have a trust path to my key you'll still get a b

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:20:08PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 09.05.2012 11:56, Jon Dowland kirjoitti: > > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:29:31PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >> Bob's PGP signature is valid - yours is not > >> You waste our time and bandwidth. > > > > In what way? I can verify

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:45:59PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:28:35AM -0500, Indulekha wrote: > > You must be from up north, LOL! > > Now *that's* rude. Only if you're from up north, and from where I'm sitting that includes just about everyone. :(=) -- "Religion is e

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 09.05.2012 11:56, Jon Dowland kirjoitti: >> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:29:31PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> Bob's PGP signature is valid - yours is not >>> You waste our time and bandwidth. >> >> In what way? I can verify Mika's signatu

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:37:23AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > The signature of Tiberius was trusted by Pilatus and Herodes. The > signature of Philippus wasn't trusted by Lysanias or anybody els. > > I couldn't find a key on public servers for Hannas and Kaiphas, but > fortunately the key of Joh

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:18:56PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >(you've trimmed my initial investigation which indicates he > > has at least one signatory.) > > "investigation"? > > Huh? > > How hard was it to see the key is signed by... the key holder (or > another person called Mika?), usin

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On 09/05/12 19:39, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:20:15PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> On 09/05/12 18:56, Jon Dowland wrote: >>> In what way? I can verify Mika's signatures just fine. The signatures >>> are valid. >> >> All his posts? >> Is cutting and pasting a hobby? >> Do yo

OT: +5, was: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, 09 May 2012 11:37:23 +0200, Ralf wrote in message <1336556243.2171.373.camel@precise>: > Or would it be a good idea t close this thread? > > Regards, > Ralf ..+5. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry.

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 10:39 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > we can then verify his signed messages in the past Why should anybody be interested in verifying any mailing list mail? Somebody might change the content of mails without signature? So we should ensure that somebody really finished the mail w

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 09:56 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:29:31PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > Bob's PGP signature is valid - yours is not > > You waste our time and bandwidth. > > In what way? I can verify Mika's signatures just fine. The signatures > are valid. > >

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 07:20:15PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 09/05/12 18:56, Jon Dowland wrote: > > In what way? I can verify Mika's signatures just fine. The signatures > > are valid. > > All his posts? > Is cutting and pasting a hobby? > Do you between "some" and "all"? The ones I've b

Re: gpg/pgp noise

09.05.2012 11:56, Jon Dowland kirjoitti: > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:29:31PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Bob's PGP signature is valid - yours is not >> You waste our time and bandwidth. > > In what way? I can verify Mika's signatures just fine. The signatures > are valid. > >> Bob's key val

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On 09/05/12 18:56, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:29:31PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> Bob's PGP signature is valid - yours is not >> You waste our time and bandwidth. > > In what way? I can verify Mika's signatures just fine. The signatures > are valid. All his posts? Is cut

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:23:06AM +0200, Frank Lanitz wrote: > Am 08.05.2012 13:11, schrieb Indulekha: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > >> > >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPqPsiAAoJECPmYW6gk8JjitcH/

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:15:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > I'm no expert in all this, but can you explain and document what you > mean by the claim that "headers ... must be verified"? All emails have > their headers modified en route (e.g., "Received:" and "Delivered-To" > are added, as are all ki

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:29:31PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Bob's PGP signature is valid - yours is not > You waste our time and bandwidth. In what way? I can verify Mika's signatures just fine. The signatures are valid. > Bob's key validates his identity - yours does not. > I can verify t

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Am 08.05.2012 13:11, schrieb Indulekha: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPqPsiAAoJECPmYW6gk8JjitcH/RGtSdn39OPewwyXYgebGiUy >> Ws29uZkfae4LlD9LRQeGQujHVW7bzMVCW2EXdRsCGIbpU0+

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On 08/05/12 23:21, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 16:16, Indulekha kirjoitti: >> I think they've come a long way in mediactions to address paranoia >> these last few years... Seriously, why the devil would anyone want >> to spoof your email?! What are you, Black Ops? > > If I recall correctl

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Indulekha wrote: > Anyone know a way to simply filter out all that annoying gpg/pgp noise? > I don't actually care if it really works, just don't want to see the garbage > huge > blocks of text and error messages. If you don't care about signatures, tell m

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Celejar wrote: >On Tue, 08 May 2012 14:53:30 +0300 >Mika Suomalainen wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spieker kirjoitti: >> > Indulekha: >> >> >> >> No, I think you may have an incorrect o

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 08 May 2012 14:53:30 +0300 Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spieker kirjoitti: > > Indulekha: > >> > >> No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete > >> configuration > > > > This is inline vs. MIME: > >

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 21:13 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > *chuckle* > > Perhaps I'm now unsubscribed to debian-users too?! This mail didn't came > through the list or simply wasn't forwarded to myself by the list. Everything is ok. So at least at the moment subscribing and unsubscribing is easy to

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 21:07 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 20:37 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 20:25 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 18:32 +0200, an unknown sender wrote: > > > > Doesn't digest send only one email in 24 hours? > > >

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 20:37 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 20:25 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 18:32 +0200, an unknown sender wrote: > > > Doesn't digest send only one email in 24 hours? > > > > No, it belongs to the volume, how many digest a day will be

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 20:25 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 18:32 +0200, an unknown sender wrote: > > Doesn't digest send only one email in 24 hours? > > No, it belongs to the volume, how many digest a day will be send. > > FWIW I again reversed my subscription by > > http://w

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 18:32 +0200, an (not really) unknown sender (Camaleón) wrote: > On Tue, 08 May 2012 16:57:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > (...) > > > Btw. if people wish to sign mails to Linux mailing lists, they should > > do. IMO it's nonsense to sign mails to Linux mailing lists. For w

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 18:32 +0200, an unknown sender wrote: > Doesn't digest send only one email in 24 hours? No, it belongs to the volume, how many digest a day will be send. FWIW I again reversed my subscription by http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/unsubscribe [x] debian-user-digest Your E-Ma

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 08 May 2012 16:57:51 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: (...) > Btw. if people wish to sign mails to Linux mailing lists, they should > do. IMO it's nonsense to sign mails to Linux mailing lists. For what do > you need signing? +5 I also find it senseless and not just for mailing lists. Greeti

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 08 May 2012 09:35:08 -0500, Indulekha wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:11:32PM +, Camaleón wrote: >> > Anyone know a way to simply filter out all that annoying gpg/pgp >> > noise? >> >> (...) >> >> IIRC, Mutt does not aut

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Could you all please discuss this off-list? Thank you! I receive digest, because I wish to have less traffic. But now I receive tons of digest just about this discussion. Since digest isn't correct formated anymore, it already isn't a pleasure to read it, resp. to sort out what I won't read isn't e

Re: gpg/pgp noise

08.05.2012 17:57, Ralf Mardorf kirjoitti: > Could you all please discuss this off-list? Thank you! I receive digest, > because I wish to have less traffic. But now I receive tons of digest > just about this discussion. Since digest isn't correct formated anymore, > it already isn't a pleasure to re

Re: gpg/pgp noise

08.05.2012 17:19, Lars Noodén kirjoitti: > My guess would be somewhere here: > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/ > The response from IRC might be more precise. But once it is entered, it > is easier to find out if it is really an upstream problem. > > Regards > /Lars This bug is now reported.

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:00:26 +0100, Phil wrote in message <4fa90ada.80...@gmail.com>: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/05/12 12:57, Indulekha wrote: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spieker kirjoitti: >

Re: gpg/pgp noise

08.05.2012 17:19, Lars Noodén kirjoitti: > On 5/8/12 4:35 PM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: >> 08.05.2012 16:09, Lars Noodén kirjoitti: > [snip] >>> For Canonical's products, the bug should be in in Launchpad. If >>> you point to it, we can add to it. > [snip] >> What would be the correct project at Lau

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On 5/8/12 4:35 PM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 16:09, Lars Noodén kirjoitti: [snip] >> For Canonical's products, the bug should be in in Launchpad. If >> you point to it, we can add to it. [snip] > What would be the correct project at Launchpad to report this bug? I > have just pinged peo

Re: gpg/pgp noise

> something wrong. > > > and I followed the exact procedure I used last time in muttrc to make > > this crap work. > > If you think GPG/PGP is "crap", I wonder why is that you are using it. > > > Am I powerless over other peoples' misconfigured gp

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On 05/08/2012 08:50 AM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 15:33, Johann Spies kirjoitti: >> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > Are you receiving the missing keys from keyserver automatically? You > can do this by adding >> keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve > to ~

Re: gpg/pgp noise

; Am I powerless over other peoples' misconfigured gpg here, or does this > indicate some error on my part? Most probably, the latter. > Anyone know a way to simply filter out all that annoying gpg/pgp noise? (...) IIRC, Mutt does not automatically verifies the signatures unles

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Okay, yes I'm top-posting get over it... Are you fraking kidding me? All this fscking drivel filling up the Debian mailing list because Ubuntu and other mailing lists don't properly handle PGP/MIME open standard signed email messages? Is that why my mailbox is getting the crap blo

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:41:29PM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/05/12 14:35, Indulekha wrote: > > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 09:26:47AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Mika Suomalainen > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> And if

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:45:59PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:28:35AM -0500, Indulekha wrote: > > And on top of it, everyone else on the list gets held hostage > > and is forced to jump through so many hoopes just to avoid being > > inconvenienced. > > > > So rude...

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:46:40PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:38:49AM -0500, Indulekha wrote: > > They don't support the considerate version of gpg/pgp. > > Now that I know that people using this actually have a choice and > > choose to be rude, it does make it rather t

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:50:22PM +0200, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > Are you receiving the missing keys from keyserver automatically? You > can do this by adding > > keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve > to ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf . > > PS. If anyone is interested, my gpg.conf can be found at > https:

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 07:38:49AM -0500, Indulekha wrote: > They don't support the considerate version of gpg/pgp. > Now that I know that people using this actually have a choice and > choose to be rude, it does make it rather tempting to set up an > autoresponder and filter to nag them... Why

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:28:35AM -0500, Indulekha wrote: > And on top of it, everyone else on the list gets held hostage > and is forced to jump through so many hoopes just to avoid being > inconvenienced. > > So rude... With respect, I don't think you have the right to speak for 'everyone el

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:34:55PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > Johann Spies: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > > > >> > >> muttrc: > >> > >> set display_filter='sed -f ~/.mutt/display-filter' > >> > >> ~/.mutt/display-filter: > >> > >> /^gpg:/d > > > > T

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/12 14:35, Indulekha wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 09:26:47AM -0400, Tom H wrote: >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Mika Suomalainen >> wrote: >>> >>> And if someone spoofs email from my address to this list and it's >>> unsigned and my m

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 06:07:25AM -0500, Indulekha wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:51:48PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > > > That keyserver which you are using seems to be offline and I don't > > know how used it is. The recommended keyserver is > > pool.sks-keyservers.net according to g

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 16:09, Lars Noodén kirjoitti: > On 5/8/12 4:02 PM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: >> 08.05.2012 15:43, Lars Noodén kirjoitti: >>> On 5/8/12 3:41 PM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: Note that gnupg mailing lists are also affected and they aren't l

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Johann Spies: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > >> >> muttrc: >> >> set display_filter='sed -f ~/.mutt/display-filter' >> >> ~/.mutt/display-filter: >> >> /^gpg:/d > > Thanks. I have learnt something new in this thread. JFTR, my actual display-filter contain

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 09:26:47AM -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Mika Suomalainen > wrote: > > > > And if someone spoofs email from my address to this list and it's > > unsigned and my messages to this list are always unsigned, I cannot > > say that I always sign my emails

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:21:38PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 16:16, Indulekha kirjoitti: > > I think they've come a long way in mediactions to address paranoia > > these last few years... Seriously, why the devil would anyone w

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On 5/8/12 4:02 PM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 15:43, Lars Noodén kirjoitti: >> On 5/8/12 3:41 PM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: >>> Note that gnupg mailing lists are also affected and they aren't >>> lists themselves, the problem is in mailing list software. I >>> think that they all use GNU Ma

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > And if someone spoofs email from my address to this list and it's > unsigned and my messages to this list are always unsigned, I cannot > say that I always sign my emails and that isn't sent by me. What a life-threatening problem! ;) -

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 16:16, Indulekha kirjoitti: > I think they've come a long way in mediactions to address paranoia > these last few years... Seriously, why the devil would anyone want > to spoof your email?! What are you, Black Ops? If I recall correctly,

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:06:54PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 15:47, Indulekha kirjoitti: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:41:40PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > 08.05.2012 15:38, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 20

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 15:47, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:41:40PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 15:38, Indulekha kirjoitti: On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:05:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: 08.05.2012 15:03, Indulekha

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 15:43, Lars Noodén kirjoitti: > On 5/8/12 3:41 PM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: >> Note that gnupg mailing lists are also affected and they aren't >> lists themselves, the problem is in mailing list software. I >> think that they all use GNU Mail

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On 5/8/12 3:41 PM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > Note that gnupg mailing lists are also affected and they aren't lists > themselves, the problem is in mailing list software. I think that they > all use GNU Mailman, which is very popular among mailing lists. > > People don't have a choice if they are o

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:31:57PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > Indulekha: > > > > Well, all I know is that Jochen Spieker is able to use it without > > being intrusive > > At the same time, my mutt apparently removes inline signatures when > replying. Skimming manual.txt, I still have no

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 15:33, Johann Spies kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > >> >> muttrc: >> >> set display_filter='sed -f ~/.mutt/display-filter' >> >> ~/.mutt/display-filter: >> >> /^gpg:/d > > Thanks. I have l

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:41:40PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 15:38, Indulekha kirjoitti: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:05:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > 08.05.2012 15:03, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 20

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/12 13:33, Johann Spies wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > >> >> muttrc: >> >> set display_filter='sed -f ~/.mutt/display-filter' >> >> ~/.mutt/display-filter: >> >> /^gpg:/d > > Thanks. I have lea

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 15:38, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:05:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 15:03, Indulekha kirjoitti: On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:00:16PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: 08.05.2012 14:57, Indulekha

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > > muttrc: > > set display_filter='sed -f ~/.mutt/display-filter' > > ~/.mutt/display-filter: > > /^gpg:/d Thanks. I have learnt something new in this thread. I still see similar messages like this on nearly all the signed emai

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:05:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 15:03, Indulekha kirjoitti: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:00:16PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > 08.05.2012 14:57, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 20

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Indulekha: > > Well, all I know is that Jochen Spieker is able to use it without > being intrusive At the same time, my mutt apparently removes inline signatures when replying. Skimming manual.txt, I still have no idea what setting is responsible for this behaviour or why it doesn't work for

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Lars Noodén: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:45:59PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: >> This is inline vs. MIME: >> >> http://www.phildev.net/pgp/pgp_clear_vs_mime.html > > How old is that? There's no date and it mentions Pine. Alpine has been > out to replace it since 2007 or so. I have no idea, it

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:45:59PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > This is inline vs. MIME: > > http://www.phildev.net/pgp/pgp_clear_vs_mime.html How old is that? There's no date and it mentions Pine. Alpine has been out to replace it since 2007 or so. Regards /Lars -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:05:10PM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/05/12 13:03, Indulekha wrote: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:00:16PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > 08.05.2012 14:57, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 15:03, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:00:16PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 14:57, Indulekha kirjoitti: On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen S

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/12 13:03, Indulekha wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:00:16PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 14:57, Indulekha kirjoitti: On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spiek

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 15:01, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:57:27PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 14:52, Indulekha kirjoitti: On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:45:59PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > Indulekha: >>

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:00:16PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 14:57, Indulekha kirjoitti: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spieker kirjoitti: > Indulekha: >

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:57:27PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 14:52, Indulekha kirjoitti: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:45:59PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > >> Indulekha: > >>> > >>> No, I think you may have an incorrect or i

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/12 12:57, Indulekha wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spieker kirjoitti: Indulekha: > > No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete > configuration

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 14:57, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spieker kirjoitti: Indulekha: > > No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete > configurat

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 14:52, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:45:59PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: >> Indulekha: >>> >>> No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete >>> configuration >> >> This is inline vs. MIME: >> >> http://www.

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:53:30PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spieker kirjoitti: > > Indulekha: > >> > >> No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete > >> configuration > > > > This is inline vs. MIME:

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 14:45, Jochen Spieker kirjoitti: > Indulekha: >> >> No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete >> configuration > > This is inline vs. MIME: > > http://www.phildev.net/pgp/pgp_clear_vs_mime.html > > J. And that page forgets

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:45:59PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > Indulekha: > > > > No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete configuration > > This is inline vs. MIME: > > http://www.phildev.net/pgp/pgp_clear_vs_mime.html > Aha, so yours is inline or MIME? And is there a recipe

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 14:46, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:29:39PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 14:20, Lisi kirjoitti: On Tuesday 08 May 2012 12:11:56 Indulekha wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil D

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:43:11PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 14:40, Indulekha kirjoitti: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:34:02PM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: On > > 08/05/12 12:29, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 14:20, Li

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Indulekha: > > No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete configuration This is inline vs. MIME: http://www.phildev.net/pgp/pgp_clear_vs_mime.html J. -- I can tell a Whopper[tm] from a BigMac[tm] and Coke[tm] from Pepsi[tm]. [Agree] [Disagree]

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:29:39PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > 08.05.2012 14:20, Lisi kirjoitti: > > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 12:11:56 Indulekha wrote: > >> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > > Increasing the pool o

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 14:40, Indulekha kirjoitti: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:34:02PM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: On > 08/05/12 12:29, Mika Suomalainen wrote: 08.05.2012 14:20, Lisi kirjoitti: > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 12:11:56 Indulekha wrote: >> On T

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/12 12:40, Indulekha wrote: [snip] > > No, I think you may have an incorrect or incomplete configuration > In what way? Cheers, Phil... - -- currently (ab)using Debian Squeeze, Fedora Verne, OS X Snow Leopard, Ubuntu Oneiric --

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:34:02PM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/05/12 12:29, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > 08.05.2012 14:20, Lisi kirjoitti: > >> On Tuesday 08 May 2012 12:11:56 Indulekha wrote: > >>> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100,

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Jochen Spieker wrote: > Indulekha: > > > > Anyone know a way to simply filter out all that annoying gpg/pgp noise? > > muttrc: > > set display_filter='sed -f ~/.mutt/display-filter' > > ~/.mutt/display-filter

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/12 12:29, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 14:20, Lisi kirjoitti: >> On Tuesday 08 May 2012 12:11:56 Indulekha wrote: >>> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: >> Increasing the pool of servers that gpg checks may al

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/12 12:26, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 08.05.2012 14:15, Phil Dobbin kirjoitti: >> On 08/05/12 12:11, Indulekha wrote: > >>> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: >>> Increasing the pool of servers that gpg checks may al

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 14:20, Lisi kirjoitti: > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 12:11:56 Indulekha wrote: >> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > Increasing the pool of servers that gpg checks may alleviate your > problem but it's more than likel

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 08.05.2012 14:15, Phil Dobbin kirjoitti: > On 08/05/12 12:11, Indulekha wrote: > >> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: >> Increasing the pool of servers that gpg checks may alleviate >> your problem but it's more than likely

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:20:56PM +0100, Lisi wrote: > On Tuesday 08 May 2012 12:11:56 Indulekha wrote: > > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Increasing the pool of servers that gpg checks may alleviat

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Indulekha: > > Anyone know a way to simply filter out all that annoying gpg/pgp noise? muttrc: set display_filter='sed -f ~/.mutt/display-filter' ~/.mutt/display-filter: /^gpg:/d J. -- I no longer believe in father christmas but have no trouble comprehending a nuclear ap

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tuesday 08 May 2012 12:11:56 Indulekha wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Increasing the pool of servers that gpg checks may alleviate your > > problem but it's more than likely to be people haven't

Re: gpg/pgp noise

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/12 12:11, Indulekha wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > Increasing the pool of servers that gpg checks may alleviate your > problem but it's more than likely to be people haven't exported their key. > > Mi

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 11:53:23AM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Increasing the pool of servers that gpg checks may alleviate your > problem but it's more than likely to be people haven't exported their key. > > Mine has been exported. See how you

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:51:48PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > That keyserver which you are using seems to be offline and I don't > know how used it is. The recommended keyserver is > pool.sks-keyservers.net according to gnupg-user mailing list. > > You probably have line like this in your

  1   2   >