From xemacs-m  Thu Sep 25 13:34:57 1997
Received: from firewall1.Lehman.COM (firewall.Lehman.COM [192.147.65.66])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA21527;
	Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:34:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from relay.messaging-svcs2.lehman.com by firewall1.Lehman.COM (8.8.6/8.6.12) id OAA01055; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cfdevx1.lehman.com by relay.messaging-svcs2.lehman.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA00037; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:34:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by cfdevx1.lehman.com (4.1/Lehman Bros. V1.6)
	id AA02607; Thu, 25 Sep 97 14:34:23 EDT
Message-Id: <9709251834.AA02607@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
Reply-To: Rick Campbell <rickc@lehman.com>
X-Face: #<@""pDMxa>Mr$Wp[^l7e1RwB6]&7pRp,f=|)6y5?t45X$y(xx.x^?k~;-d>s:SL86Qt82U
 'M!RC3LrDvD/LjiYdGO!:\/\qx?YabgGC9%xw5%0-W05LRvyu9vB9TYk%5PN|C*0WgrXD-L0'g3j;h
X-Windows: The first fully modular software disaster.
Organization: Lehman Brothers Inc.
From: Rick Campbell <rickc@lehman.com>
To: SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: XEmacs 19.16-pre3 can't do PGP-MIME sigs 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "23 Sep 1997 19:24:02 PDT."
             <m2souvo3el.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_Sep_25_14:34:06_1997-1"; micalg=pgp-md5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:34:13 -0400
Sender: rickc@lehman.com

--pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_Sep_25_14:34:06_1997-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

    From: SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
    Date: 23 Sep 1997 19:24:02 -0700
    
    Rick Campbell <rickc@lehman.com> writes:
    
    > As was the case with 19.16-b91, 19.16-pre3 breaks PGP-MIME signature
    > checking that worked fine in 19.15.
    
    O.K.  This is something which should be fixed before release and it is 
    unlikely to be fixed in pre4 which didn't contain any code changes
    beyond build tweaking.
    
    Did you ever post a stack-backtrace or more information about this?

No, I didn't sorry.  I'll try to follow up.

BTW, if you're asking me a question, please try to include my address
in the headers -- I'll see the message much sooner than if you only
send to the list.  In general, I think that the classic `Reply All' is 
the right model -- if I want to elide duplicate messages, I can do so
based on message-id (and I do, using procmail).  I believe that there
was general consensus that this is the Right Thing the last time it
came up on this list.
    
    I don't see anything in the b90-b91 patch which would have caused
    this.  Did b90 or any of the p's work?

No.

    What mailer are you using?

mh-e

			Rick

--pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_Sep_25_14:34:06_1997-1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBNCqun1tTztlqB385AQF1JwP/XL55HF5NyZ8lEt4Ep+Yrnkqmu9/JK1I8
az6uRZUYNpHNKUdDD/Hg2JO8fMpnciRq8ACJJ7mHwBAZMX+TtYs7qbxWw3G8FSaq
dioR7rYN9MtFNaKjAvdRiQ+xd69idqP6kn2pi6rLg/+cvFxhEmLROmHZJ9KeH0bE
eexQn0hyoGo=
=SmRb
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

--pgp-sign-Multipart_Thu_Sep_25_14:34:06_1997-1--

