After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 219709 - PGP Signatures are broken for message digests
PGP Signatures are broken for message digests
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 218935
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
pre-1.5 (obsolete)
Other All
: Normal normal
: Future
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2002-01-31 10:15 UTC by Sven Neuhaus
Modified: 2002-02-08 18:46 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Sven Neuhaus 2002-01-31 10:15:08 UTC 
Description of Problem:
PGP signatures will be shown as broken for message digests despite being
correct. PGP signatures work ok for non digest messages.

Steps to reproduce the problem:
1. Subscribe to bugtraq mailing list in digest form
2. Click on one PGP signed message in the digest
3. GPG (tested with gnupg 1.0.6) will tell you the signature is incorrect
4. Checking the signature in mutt will reveal that it is in fact correct

Actual Results:
Wrong signature displayed

Expected Results:
Valid signature displayed

How often does this happen? 
always

Additional Information:
Normal messages work OK. The problem only occurs with message digests.
Comment 1 Andy Dustman 2002-02-08 14:33:33 UTC 
More info:

Evolution handles S/MIME messages just fine, i.e.:

Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
    protocol="application/pgp-signature";

What it has problems with are clear-signed PGP messages, particularly
those generated by PGP 2.6. PGP 5.0 and up (and GPG) all insert at
least one non-empty comment line after the "BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE"
header, which indicates what type of message digest was used (i.e.
Hash: SHA1); 2.6 only used MD5.

If there is no comment, Evolution eats the next paragraph, and this
causes the signature not to verify.
Comment 2 Jeffrey Stedfast 2002-02-08 18:46:01 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 218935 ***