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

[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 at Lichtvoll.de>"
gpg:                 aka "Martin Steigerwald <Martin.Steigerwald at Web.de>"
gpg:                 aka "Martin Steigerwald (Helios) <Martin at Lichtvoll.de>"
gpg:                 aka "Martin Steigerwald <Martin.Steigerwald at Googlemail.com>"

So maybe it's not the mailling list itself, but something else?

regards,
iustin