| Jeff Abrahamson on 28 Jan 2005 14:37:05 -0000 |
|
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:05:58AM -0500, Arthur S. Alexion wrote: > What I didn't understand is that, to be effective, signatures are an > all or nothing proposition. That is, the best way to spot a forgery > is to know that the sender always signs his or her messages, ergo, > an unsigned message is probably not authentic. This is a very important observation, but it goes beyond this. If people only sign email when it's really important to establish authorship, then when people do sign, they are making a very bold statement. A reader may spend considerable time wondering why this message is different. Encryption (not applicable to list mail) is in the same position: if I only encrypt mail when it's *really* secret, then encrypted mails draw attention to themselves. -- Jeff Jeff Abrahamson <http://www.purple.com/jeff/> +1 215/837-2287 GPG fingerprint: 1A1A BA95 D082 A558 A276 63C6 16BF 8C4C 0D1D AE4B Attachment:
signature.asc ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|