non ascii armor file sigs

[David Shaw]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 09:59:55AM -0600, Jacob Perkins wrote:
> 
> Should gpg be able to verify a non ascii armor detached signature?  For
> example, I have a file foo.  I can make two detached sigs, one armored
> (foo.asc) and the other not (foo.gpg).  gpg --verify foo.asc is fine,
> but gpg --verify foo.gpg gives:
> gpg: no signed data
> gpg: can't hash datafile: file open error
> 
> I'm using gpgme-0.3.14 (seahorse) to do the sigs, and it will verify
> both fine.
> Is this normal behavior or should signatures always be armored?

It's not an armoring issue - it the name of the file.  The non-armored
file is named "foo.gpg", and should be "foo.sig".  When verifying a
file with a nonstandard name, you need to do something like
"gpg --verify foo.gpg foo" (or whatever the original filename is).

David

-- 
   David Shaw  |  dshaw at jabberwocky.com  |  WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson