From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE901138330 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:07:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D5CFDE0B68; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FF99E0B08 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:07:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l132so3007832wmf.1 for ; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:07:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:reply-to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=1wyphU1mf6xOh5lkz7J3hUCJNGMAd25LiCmHssvJ2oU=; b=WXnsezrDzUGEs+CJfj+6u/jVCafDDyrIbVBBGvROWEa9m8QjKQQCrioJMnPCVbqx0W KPVuGzTWm0zTTEwEndAy7fC0k5ybgnVfAXRXOhc03g9O2JFi1yON/LITmf2uHHufRNVG AFIJsABmLx1GzDYcjzS8ljSJEUrNSXE1ODGXkJXO2tg++TFw7r4v+jRdxEfOlCxrJvDy /cdNnNJppJhlmfXhoMieJr4fyhUEHNouKmc25/nNORbOPwYRa+rUFvkVOn7RRV/K3Z7w 67+uk6vlz8B7O7tIzits9JNbzTKMNKBox83CelF0oDCOQCznt8i2TRWaQxDdOEJInDRO xxCQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:reply-to:subject:date:message-id :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version; bh=1wyphU1mf6xOh5lkz7J3hUCJNGMAd25LiCmHssvJ2oU=; b=ddw7b1MYwN4KdG2Ka4LSchtOFy8BXcmZ/q0b2RGzyA5lzwTE8C1MYD+tDLfHBH4lsB KPSG/nqgK49w0W0UCH7Tcha8yUtQYiZ3UULm7uFWxPpi+iCHZtLsZmY+Pn5uFgY96G2q UDULts9uFcd3BVQVsVOKTF13tMR0qEkN/mGbRRIHzBaO2YgIr59GBv859R+9xTBbKQtY gDCplnd+rd1fGwMPAnQiJA9U2rJAiw+hiG5TQwZjPAwsLypjei0vMdszCMtNPcM1IiD9 aCKZp8Qv9xyd4D5MfVMmI0kpF1DQX/ydwWHkInFoqIgbLVCadCtWD3SiOxdw0UqBX0/y PO8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOw++JsCRCE7gPunEULoqToM5oPocoGwlcIIbdmP0oHQ+PpVCGgIeo+Bt0p20lXEg== X-Received: by 10.28.161.133 with SMTP id k127mr265392wme.103.1474322845811; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa. [217.169.3.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gr7sm25120738wjc.1.2016.09.19.15.07.25 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:07:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gpg signature verification failures Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:01:59 +0100 Message-ID: <1763212.jdk15RXu8U@dell_xps> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.4.6-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160919203109.2555.397F5895@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> References: <20160918170101.6645.1B62394E@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> <20160919203109.2555.397F5895@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2729058.qUTK28odRq"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: b2dd995f-226a-4dd3-aa8c-c7bb568ee92a X-Archives-Hash: 23332a7ce2211e350ee193e20c1483d1 --nextPart2729058.qUTK28odRq Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Monday 19 Sep 2016 13:37:43 Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2016-09-18 10:10, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > Note that it is _not_ a mutt problem: one gets the same "BAD > > signature" result from a bare gpg run on the extracted message part= . >=20 > I have to retract this. So far everyone who reported this runs mutt;= > and my evidence in the other direction, given above, is laughably wro= ng > (the signature is not computed that way, but on trasformed data as > specified by RFC 3156). >=20 > So yes, it looks a lot like a flea. Whenever I tried to get gnupg running with mutt I came across some prob= lem or=20 another, but didn't have time to look into it further. From what I rec= all=20 signatures showing up as bad was one of them, but could be mistaken (th= is was=20 some months ago). > > So, what's going on? This would seem to be a Big Deal [TM]. >=20 > Still surprised by the lack of urgency. I'm pretty much dropping > everything until I can fix this. I'd be interested to find out how I can manually extract the contents o= f a=20 message and verify it manually. I followed page 5 of RFC 3156, but it = is=20 showing Bad signature. :-/ =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart2729058.qUTK28odRq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAABCAAGBQJX4GBgAAoJELAdA+zwE4YePQMH/3y+Qzy/snA5/sfg+6R1lrPi pnFD9F2Dj7f6dvIScLVhV/lPfHf+wCrYCSs6FTe0rg312/6Z0VPNs6Z9/4f7jZxv AWXPr7fSsiqhqBfrCxHqu/NIrAPTAgKIFx5/HVDA//VtlWAy+Vb16BpPSxhrOL8H bMuGHo97teSocl8Qhzp1RgdvW/zsVqlZ9LlrJGdv0haHsewm49Z7Iu6yb9ty040h Z5aIZiNwNYGMmpuxLOLgwWFSIpP9zUfzG2/KEa5GTME51RVQtMhM5zKftq/kQguU 2+yi3gsfuRQT44TaKe4CzOLywbZ8s7O0iPk28KABUTeXUX5daHY2LQ/yMvdIksQ= =LCF6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2729058.qUTK28odRq--