24 Jul
2016
24 Jul
'16
1:14 p.m.
On Sun, 2016-07-24 at 05:23 -0700, Patrick Burroughs (Celti) wrote:
perhaps it was sending both HTML and plaintext, signing the wrong one, and then mailman stripped the HTML (ruining the signature) once it was sent?
~Celti
I was indeed sending both (I disabled HTML now), and it was signing both. In fact following the procedure that I described above [1], gpg was correctly verifing the content, and the text between the boundary lines included both plain/text and HTML. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3156