Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.108 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.108; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148108.authsmtp.net; 
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:43:01 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Andy Schroder <info@AndySchroder.com>
Message-ID: <20150610194301.GC21416@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <1943127.DBnVxmfOIh@1337h4x0r>
	<20150610093556.GA11409@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<557869F9.8030109@AndySchroder.com> <557883A7.7030906@sky-ip.org>
	<55788924.6090008@AndySchroder.com>
	<20150610190320.GA1229@savin.petertodd.org>
	<55788C02.1010105@AndySchroder.com>
	<20150610192004.GB21416@savin.petertodd.org>
	<557891CA.5010708@AndySchroder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OBd5C1Lgu00Gd/Tn"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <557891CA.5010708@AndySchroder.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Is SourceForge still trustworthy enough
 to host this list?
Precedence: list


--OBd5C1Lgu00Gd/Tn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:36:42PM -0400, Andy Schroder wrote:
> It's possible that the enigmail extension is not working right, but
> I was under the impression that it is just feeding data to gpg and
> then receiving the response back. It's possible that your e-mail you
> just checked was not sent through mailman since I also replied
> directly to you explicitly (in which case the message has not been
> modified) and you probably have the setting in the mailing list set
> to not send duplicate messages if you are an explicit TO. I just
> deleted all explicit TOs for this message, so everyone should be
> receiving it through the mailing list and not directly. Is the
> signature still valid for you now? I think enigmail can handle

It has perfectly valid signatures, as do your earlier messages to the
list.

> messages with some signed and unsigned content, and maybe PGP/MIME
> inherently does not support this and a mailing list re-writing parts
> of messages is an expected action? If this message re-writing is an
> expected action and I'm correct that PGP/MIME does not support
> partially signed content, then maybe it is just a recommendation for
> this mailing list to not use PGP/MIME for messages sent to the list?

PGP/MIME definitely does support partially signed content.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000009e865d07f75341a5f3dc15f0e149055a241eedd552c3b88

--OBd5C1Lgu00Gd/Tn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=Ufio
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--OBd5C1Lgu00Gd/Tn--