Mike Leone on Fri, 9 Nov 2001 16:42:57 -0500 |
> Are the postings to this list of such a nature as to really require > pgp/gpg signatures? The nature of the message is irrelevant; what is important is that the identity of the sender can be verified, with a pgp signature. PGP/GPG (or anything else, for that matter) has no way of verifying the validity of the contents, nor it's relevance. Usually, if you sign anything, you sign EVERYTHING. Most folks don't seem to make distinctions of about "well, THESE I'll sign, and THESE I won't sign". Simpler just to sign all your email; that way, it can all be verified as coming from you. No guarantee that it will make sense, tho :-). And yes, I'm on some lists that block ALL attchments, even pgp/gpg signings. > > leroy wrote: > > > > it would not be terribly difficult to write a sub-2K vbscript that could > > trash a machine. is it possible to setup the scanner to allow only pgp > > signings? > > > > stephen > > > > -- my name is not leroy > > > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Mike Leone wrote: > > > >> > Should not PLUG be doing the same? Why not simply strip out all > >> attachments and eliminate > >> > >> Stripping ALL attachments would also strip PGP signings from emails, since > >> signings come as attachments. > ____________________________________ > Art Alexion > Arthur S. Alexion LLC > ---------------- > 215-884-5828 > ---------------- > arthur @alexion.com > www.alexion.com > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org > Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce > General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug > > ______________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|