[Beds] Re: Thank you

[Jonathan Dye]

Neil Darlow wrote:
> Hi Jon,
> 
> On Thursday 23 Jan 2003 15:25, Jonathan Dye wrote:
>> Looks OK to me (gpg v1.0.6)
> 
> I'm using gnupg-1.2.1 and it showed as bad for me too. Did the hash
> change between gnupg-1.0.x and gnupg-1.2.x?

Hmm, looking at the docs for v1.0.6 it talks about a few incompatabilities
with older versions (that are fixed with command line switches), I wonder if
similiar things have happened between 1.0.6 and 1.2.x.  I'll have a look at
the docs for 1.2.x when I get home.

Although after trying it again with --verbose I get:

> [jon@firewall jon]$ gpg --verbose --verify email
> gpg: Warning: using insecure memory!
> gpg: armor header: Version: Hush 2.2 (Java)
> gpg: armor header: Note: This signature can be verified at
https://www.hushtools.com/verify
> gpg: original file name=''
> gpg: Signature made Thu 23 Jan 2003 01:46:21 PM GMT using DSA key ID
15490DF9
> gpg: requesting key 15490DF9 from wwwkeys.uk.pgp.net ...
> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
> gpg: Total number processed: 0
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found

So maybe it's not checking the signiture at all because I haven't got the
correct key.  Should pay more attention next time.

I can't get your key from anywhere Fred have you got a link to it?

JD

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by the 
MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service