cour...@lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
Richard Feldmann writes:
Greetings,
I just downloaded the most recent maildrop tar file
(maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2), along with the .sig file and the verify attempt
failed, saying it is a "BAD signature." Is this the correct sig for this
file? Perhaps the author should verify the sig and make a valid one
available . . .
Here's the message:
gpg --verify maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2.sig maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2
gpg: Signature made Fri 13 May 2005 06:25:33 AM MDT using DSA key ID 81E550E2
gpg: BAD signature from "Sam Varshavchik <mrs...@courier-mta.com>"
$ gpg maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2.sig
gpg: Signature made Fri 13 May 2005 08:25:33 AM EDT using DSA key ID 81E550E2
gpg: Good signature from "Sam Varshavchik <mrs...@courier-mta.com>"
Primary key fingerprint: 7F87 3288 3015 BF63 BC71 7A5A C7DA 7719 81E5 50E2
This seems pretty odd. Here's exactly what I did and I still get the
same bad verification:
wget http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/courier/maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2
wget
http://internap.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/courier/maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2.sig
file maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2.sig
maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2.sig: data <== seems strange
If I use wget to retrieve
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/courier/maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2.sig it
just retrieves an html page from sourceforge that contains no sig. So, I
chose a different mirror.
gpg --list-keys --fingerprint Varshavchik
pub 1024D/81E550E2 2003-04-11
Key fingerprint = 7F87 3288 3015 BF63 BC71 7A5A C7DA 7719 81E5 50E2
uid Sam Varshavchik <mrs...@courier-mta.com>
sub 2048g/8F7B8E00 2003-04-11
gpg --verify maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2.sig maildrop-1.8.1.tar.bz2.sig
gpg: Signature made Fri 13 May 2005 06:25:33 AM MDT using DSA key ID
81E550E2
gpg: BAD signature from "Sam Varshavchik <mrs...@courier-mta.com>"
The fingerprint matches, but I'm wondering if the sig that's available
on sourceforge somehow got corrupted? I thought the sig would be in
ascii armor format . . . ?
Regards,
Richard