Am Mittwoch 28 Januar 2009 schrieb Iustin Pop:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:22:00PM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > 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.
> For what is worth, gpg tells me on your email:
> gpg: Signature made Wed 28 Jan 2009 09:22:00 PM CET using DSA key ID
> A59984C7 gpg: Good signature from "Martin Steigerwald
> <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" gpg: aka "Martin Steigerwald
> <Martin.Steigerwald@xxxxxx>" gpg: aka "Martin
> Steigerwald (Helios) <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" gpg: aka
> "Martin Steigerwald <Martin.Steigerwald@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
> So maybe it's not the mailling list itself, but something else?
Strange. A bug in KMail with decoding GPG signaturesin *some* mails?
However I did find this only on the XFS mailing list so far. If I find
time I will take a closer look tomorrow.
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.