Re: [LUG] GnuPG signatures

[Kai Hendry <hendry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Anyone have any ideas why KMail handles a GnuPG signature differently from 
> Mutt / Evolution? Is there a 'correct' way of handling signatures? 

I am glad you raised this, because that problem has been on my TODO list
for awhile.

> According to the signature text, we all seem to be using the same version of 
> GnuPG, 1.0.6 (Theo uses 1.0.7 but that still works.)

> What happens when Theo or I send signed messages using KMail to members using 
> Mutt or Evolution? Does it show up as a signed message?

When I want to check your signature, i have to initiate the command:
<Esc>P           check-traditional-pgp              check for classic pgp

I guess Kmail, does it the "old" way. Although I really do not know tbh.
I am not being helpful here. :)

-Kai
p.s. Yay for South Korea !

Attachment: pgp00053.pgp
Description: PGP signature