Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404ED431FB6 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:38:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kjKRPU66yiHM for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:37:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from yantan.tethera.net (yantan.tethera.net [199.188.72.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D350431FAF for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:37:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by yantan.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W6KTf-0006or-6j; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:37:51 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 29345 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:37:47 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Jameson Graef Rollins , Notmuch Mail Subject: Re: decryption error for signed+encrypted messages In-Reply-To: <87obwrix8s.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> References: <87obwrix8s.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17+35~g3b36898 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:37:47 -0400 Message-ID: <87eh3yrf84.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:38:03 -0000 Jameson Graef Rollins writes: > I just wanted to note on-list that I've run into what I think is a GMIME > bug having to do with encrypted messages. I think this has been > mentioned on IRC, but I wanted to document it here (so that we can tag > it with our new bug tracker!). > > Decryption of messages that are both signed and encrypted seems to fail > if the signers key is not present in the users keyring. I don't see any > reason why decryption should fail, since it shouldn't have anything to > do with the signer. The message should decrypt, and there should only > be a signature verification error. > > I haven't checked to see if this has been reported upstream or not. > I'll try to look into it. > This bug seems to be (some time ago) marked fixed upstream https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=677088 Can you still see the bug in notmuch? d