Your message with subj: Bug#44554: GPG signature shown as attachment instead of beeing verified -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 30 June 2002 18:35, runevi@student.matnat.uio.no wrote: > Kmail shows the gpg signature as an attachment,instead of verifying > the signature, in this email: The next version of KMail (in KDE 3.1) will support this kind of signatures. Regards, Ingo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9H2WQGnR+RTDgudgRAtb1AKDA6Z/X/eb0Lay/tTPL4eAVkmUxrQCfUEnf S6w3dGNxYNf7QF7MVdXGXLA= =Wyrq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Stephan Kulow (administrator, KDE bugs database) (Complete bug history is available at http://bugs.kde.org/db/44/44554.html) Received: (at submit) by bugs.kde.org; 30 Jun 2002 16:35:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 8455 invoked by uid 33); 30 Jun 2002 16:35:03 -0000 Date: 30 Jun 2002 16:35:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20020630163503.8454.qmail@mail.kde.org> To: submit@bugs.kde.org Subject: GPG signature shown as attachment instead of beeing verified From: runevi@student.matnat.uio.no X-KDE-Received: -195.159.107.29 Package: kmail Version: 1.4 (using KDE 3.0.1 ) Severity: normal Installed from: SuSE Compiler: gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (SuSE) OS: Linux (i686) release 2.4.18-4GB OS/Compiler notes: Kmail shows the gpg signature as an attachment,instead of verifying the signature, in this email: ------------------- Return-Path: Delivered-To: rune@trans4media.com Received: (qmail 16137 invoked by uid 560); 30 Jun 2002 16:16:50 -0000 Received: from current-users-owner-rune=t4m.com@netbsd.org by obelix.trans4media.com with qmail-scanner-0.96 (. Clean. Processed in 0.241971 secs); 30 Jun 2002 16:16:50 -0000 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (155.53.1.253) by obelix.t4m.com with SMTP; 30 Jun 2002 16:16:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 10923 invoked by uid 605); 30 Jun 2002 16:16:14 -0000 Delivered-To: current-users@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 10916 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2002 16:16:13 -0000 Received: from uriel.eclipsed.net (66.92.234.99) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 30 Jun 2002 16:16:13 -0000 Received: by uriel.eclipsed.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 406EA49701; Sun, 30 Jun 2002 12:16:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 12:16:11 -0400 From: gabriel rosenkoetter To: NetBSD-current Discussion List Subject: Re: 7 days and counting since my last rsync with new revisions.... Message-ID: <20020630161611.GJ908@uriel.eclipsed.net> Mail-Followup-To: NetBSD-current Discussion List References: <20020626164755.0E308AC@proven.weird.com> <873cv9kfls.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <20020626195500.01FA6AC@proven.weird.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PNftq4k6NuHCGvy8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020626195500.01FA6AC@proven.weird.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: current-users-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Status: R X-Status: N --PNftq4k6NuHCGvy8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 03:55:00PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote: > Would more rsync mirrors (or at least one more here in Toronto) help to > spread the load out? Only if people actually use them. --=20 gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net --PNftq4k6NuHCGvy8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (NetBSD) iD8DBQE9Hy7L9ehacAz5CRoRApFmAJoDozg2Y48/CNw3GX0oIe9vHS3CBgCdE/A/ Dz62bYNmh6e/NWLKnHJPMEM= =3Qgh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PNftq4k6NuHCGvy8-- ----------------------- I'm not sure why this happens, but when content type is "Multipart/signed", shouldn't kmail verify the signature? (Submitted via bugs.kde.org) (Called from KBugReport dialog)