Arthur S. Alexion on Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:36:31 -0500 |
I don't totally disagree, and the issue is not that big a deal for me. At 11:50 PM 12/3/2001 -0500, you wrote: On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 10:24:47PM -0500, Arthur S. Alexion wrote: > >This is not an issue of secrecy, it's one of authentication. > Right. Is that important for list mail? All I have to do is know a minimum of information about your dealings with some person (which is easy, especially with email correspondents, because all of your email correspondence is probably in clear text anyhow and reading yours is some minimal verbal coercion away, even easier if I know about the situation I want to affect, since I'm probably already interested with in that situation), and I can impersonate you with incredible ease.
Even if I don't know him personally, I know he's the same person I've seen send messages to PLUG and I know we have an established relationship. It doesn't matter if he is who he says he is, as long as he's said the same thing about who he is all along, I know that whoever's saying the important thing to me is the same person.
> But sometimes I want to save the messages, especially if they address a > problem similar to one I am experiencing. Easy to do, but my it's one more little thing to do and those little things add up. While I never proposed that signatures were always unnecessary, I felt they were less important for correspondence of the sort we conduct on this list. And if I could eliminate one little bit of housekeeping. . . Anyway, your above quoted point has convinced me that the value outweighs the annoyance. Art
|
|