From: exmh-users-admin@redhat.com  Tue Sep  3 14:20:18 2002
Return-Path: <exmh-users-admin@example.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0A216F40
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue,  3 Sep 2002 14:18:48 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 03 Sep 2002 14:18:48 +0100 (IST)
Received: from listman.example.com (listman.example.com [66.187.233.211]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8322hZ01052 for
    <jm-exmh@jmason.org>; Tue, 3 Sep 2002 03:02:44 +0100
Received: from listman.example.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
    listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DB93F4F6; Mon,  2 Sep 2002
    22:03:01 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: exmh-users@listman.example.com
Received: from int-mx1.corp.example.com (int-mx1.corp.example.com
    [172.16.52.254]) by listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C093FFC4
    for <exmh-users@listman.redhat.com>; Mon,  2 Sep 2002 22:02:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mail@localhost) by int-mx1.corp.example.com (8.11.6/8.11.6)
    id g83223J31599 for exmh-users@listman.redhat.com; Mon, 2 Sep 2002
    22:02:03 -0400
Received: from mx1.example.com (mx1.example.com [172.16.48.31]) by
    int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g83223Y31570 for
    <exmh-users@redhat.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:02:03 -0400
Received: from blackcomb.panasas.com (gw2.panasas.com [65.194.124.178]) by
    mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g831kQl32226 for
    <exmh-users@redhat.com>; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:46:26 -0400
Received: from medlicott.panasas.com (IDENT:welch@medlicott.panasas.com
    [172.17.132.188]) by blackcomb.panasas.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id
    WAA01468; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:01:50 -0400
Message-Id: <200209030201.WAA01468@blackcomb.panasas.com>
To: Reg Clemens <reg@dwf.com>
Cc: exmh-users@example.com
Subject: Re: ARRRGHHH Had GPG working, now it doesnt.
In-Reply-To: <200209021953.g82Jrerq003365@orion.dwf.com>
References: <200209021953.g82Jrerq003365@orion.dwf.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Reg Clemens <reg@dwf.com> message dated "Mon, 02 Sep
    2002 13:53:40 -0600."
From: Brent Welch <welch@panasas.com>
X-Url: http://www.panasas.com/
X-Face: "HxE|?EnC9fVMV8f70H83&{fgLE.|FZ^$>@Q(yb#N,Eh~N]e&]=>r5~UnRml1:4EglY{9B+
    :'wJq$@c_C!l8@<$t,{YUr4K,QJGHSvS~U]H`<+L*x?eGzSk>XH\W:AK\j?@?c1o<k;j'Ei/UL)!*0
    ILwSR)J\bc)gjz!rrGQ2#i*f:M:ydhK}jp4dWQW?;0{,#iWrCV$4~%e/3)$1/D
X-Loop: exmh-users@example.com
Sender: exmh-users-admin@example.com
Errors-To: exmh-users-admin@example.com
X-Beenthere: exmh-users@example.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: exmh-users@example.com
List-Help: <mailto:exmh-users-request@example.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:exmh-users@example.com>
List-Subscribe: <https://listman.example.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-users>,
    <mailto:exmh-users-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Discussion list for EXMH users <exmh-users.example.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://listman.example.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-users>,
    <mailto:exmh-users-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://listman.example.com/mailman/private/exmh-users/>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:01:49 -0700
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.3 required=7.0
	tests=AWL,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,REFERENCES,
	      SPAM_PHRASE_02_03,X_LOOP
	version=2.41-cvs
X-Spam-Level: 

2 things - first, the switch parser changed in a subtle way with 8.4 -
byte-code compilation was added, and it is slightly more strict in
its parsing than the original parser.  You can only have a comment where
Tcl would expect to find a command.  Switch has a "pattern - body"
strucutre, so if you goof and put a comment where it is trying to find
a pattern, both of you will be confused with the results.  The
subtlty arises with extra whitespace and newlines. I can't give you
the exact case, but I know exmh had one example that stopped parsing
correctly, and was arguably wrong before.

2nd - I've managed to remain fairly ignoranat of the PGP support in
exmh, so you'll have to dig in yourself or see if someone else on
exmh-users or exmh-workers is having similar problems.

>>>Reg Clemens said:
 > > If you haven't already, you should enable the debug log under
 > > Hacking Support preferences and look for clues there.
 > > 
 > > >>>Reg Clemens said:
 > >  > > Hi,
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:05:03 MDT Reg Clemens wrote: 
 > >  > >   
 > >  > > [...]
 > >  > > > in messages with GnuPG signatures.  But punching the line ALWAYS
 > >  > > > gives
 > >  > > > 
 > >  > > >         Signature made Thu Aug 29 00:27:17 2002 MDT using DSA key I
     D BDD
 > >      F997A
 > >  > > >         Can't check signature: public key not found
 > >  > > > 
 > >  > > > So, something else is missing.
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > Yes, the public key of the signature you want to check :-).
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > Are you really sure that you have the public key of the message's
 > >  > > signature? If not, try downloading it or try to check a signature fro
     m
 > >  > > which you know you have the public key.
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > Ah, sorry for not making that clearer.
 > >  > But no.
 > >  > Previously (v1.0.6 of GnuPG) there would be a slight pause at this poin
     t whi
 > >      le
 > >  > it went out to get the public key from a keyserver.
 > >  > Now, whether I have the key or NOT, I get the failure message.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Its as if it cant find gpg to execute it (but I fixed that path), so th
     ere
 > >  > must be something else that I am missing...
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > -- 
 > >  >                                         Reg.Clemens
 > >  >                                         reg@dwf.com
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > _______________________________________________
 > >  > Exmh-users mailing list
 > >  > Exmh-users@redhat.com
 > >  > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-users
 > > 
 > > --
 > > Brent Welch
 > > Software Architect, Panasas Inc
 > > Pioneering the World's Most Scalable and Agile Storage Network
 > > www.panasas.com
 > > welch@panasas.com
 > > 
 > 
 > 
 > Partial solution.
 > And this MAY be related to using tcl/tk 8.4b1, as I had a similar
 > problem about a month ago elsewhere in EXMH (which you found).
 > 
 > But first.
 > I really feel like something has changed out from under me
 > with my making no changes to EXMH.  Namely, when I first got
 > GPG up and working (for reading signatures) all I did was
 > touch the 'Check Signature' button' and it went out and queried
 > the keyserver for me.
 > Now Im getting a separate box, after the failure to find the
 > public key on my keyring, asking me of I want to 'Query keyserver'
 > 
 > I KNOW that I never had to touch a 'Query keyserver' button in
 > the past, but there it is now, and I havent touched EXMH. Spooky.
 > 
 > I have been working back and forth between GPG 1.0.6 and 1.0.7
 > but its not clear how that could be the problem, as Im now getting
 > the 'Query' message when running either...
 > 
 > ---
 > 
 > OK, enough about my confusion.
 > The CURRENT problem seems to be a COMMENT in a SWITCH statement
 > at line 86 in pgpWWW.tcl.  Tcl 8.4b1 doesnt like it and I get your
 > popup box.  Remove it and no popupbox, but EXMH hangs (sigh).
 > So, not a complete solution, but at least a start.
 > 
 > Thanks for the interest.
 > 
 > 					Reg.Clemens
 > 					reg@dwf.com

--
Brent Welch
Software Architect, Panasas Inc
Pioneering the World's Most Scalable and Agile Storage Network
www.panasas.com
welch@panasas.com



_______________________________________________
Exmh-users mailing list
Exmh-users@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-users

