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