Re: [tlug] Followup on mutt and gpg

[bruno raoult <br@example.com>]

This one was fine (digitally signed), even if the signature
cannnot be proven authentic, with the evo message:
	This message is digitally signed but
	can not be proven to be authentic.

I am not sure if it comes from the format, or from another
gpg pb...

br.


On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 22:23, Ulrich Plate wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tuesday 03 September 2002 22:15, bruno raoult wrote:
> > Cannot be sure, but with my EVO 1.0.7, I got no trash in any pgp
> > signature since the beginning of this thread. If you could send
> > me 2 mails (with both "standards") at br@example.com, to
> > confirm, this could be an answer to your question...
> >
> > br.
> 
> Ok, here's the old ASCII armoured PGP non-MIME plain text variant that my
> KMail does by default (no patches applied).

-- 
WWJD?  JWRTFM!!
  -- /.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part