xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

invalidated gpg signatures (was: Re: xfs open questions)

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: invalidated gpg signatures (was: Re: xfs open questions)
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:22:00 +0100
In-reply-to: <49807510.20100@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200901270928.29215@xxxxxx> <4980712A.4050500@xxxxxxxxxxx> <49807510.20100@xxxxxxxxxxx> (sfid-20090128_201347_468687_E8D58AED)
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9
Am Mittwoch 28 Januar 2009 schrieb Russell Cattelan:
> Russell Cattelan wrote:
> > Michael Monnerie wrote:
> >> On Mittwoch 28 Januar 2009 Russell Cattelan wrote:
> >>> The sig is there, are you saying it's broken somehow?
> >>> It might have something to do with the html stripper.
> >>
> >> Yes, I use kmail (from KDE) which automatically displays mails with
> >> gpg- sigs in different colours to easily see if it's
> >> correct/trusted/wrong. And on this list, my messages all come with
> >> "Invalid Sig".
> >
> > Well I ran a test email through the test list on oss and it seems to
> > work fine.
> >
> > Let try it here then, I'm going to sign this and see if it come back
> > to me with a valid sig.
>
> Grr try #2

Shown as invalid here - as the signature of Michael. I mentioned this a 
few times already to.

Signing this as well, but I expect it will come out as invalid too.

I think it can't be Mailman. As I am on several Mailman mailinglist where 
this works.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>