|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] PGP Signatures Was: Re: BusinessWeek Article: Linux Inc
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Diehl wrote:
> When I hit the reply key I cannot include a PGP signed message without
> cutting and pasting the content of the original message. I do not get
> the quoting automatically.
Then you should find a better email program. Basic reply quoting should
is a pretty basic requirement for a mail program, even for text with
attachments.
> I am using pine.
Yes, pine has known issues. You might try mutt - it has a better reputation
for being able to handle PGP messages, and I know many people who are very
happy with it.
> There are still large parts of the world who actually pay for bandwidth.
> I doubt that there are many subscribers to this list that are outside
> the U.S. but who knows. It seems that rule has gone by the wayside
> on this list in favor of PGP signatures.
Straw man. Not only is "paying for bandwidth" not much of an issue
anymore, but sigs add very little overhead to a message. Even if sigs were
used by everyone on the net, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to
the bandwidth used by improper quoting, HTML emails, and email worms.
Someone said:
> You could turn around, fabricate a story and say that someone hacked
> your email account add sent the above message without your knowing it.
You don't need to hack an account to send an email as someone else. Just
configure your mail program to have a different "from", or telnet to port
25 and do it yourself.
Arthur S. Alexion wrote:
> Inline ascii signatures have the advantage of not confusing MUAs that
> don't know what to do with signatures.
They also have the advantage of not being stripped by overzealous and/or
broken M[TU]As. Plus they don't mess up message digests and archives,
and are easy to forward.
> They only work for plain text, though.
Yes, plain text and email go together very nicely! :) Where clearsigning
fails, however, is when you are writing in Unicode or some other non-ascii
format. That's the number one reason why they may diminish in the future.
Okay, also the fact that MUAs often have auto-MIME support.
> What I like about them the least is that they tend to make really ugly and
> unreadable quotes of plain text replies to HTML mail if you are replying
> with an HTML capable composer...
HTML email is wrong in the first place, and you add insult to injury if you
reply to someone who sent you plain text with HTML.
Jeff Abrahamson wrote:
> 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.
- -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
jA0EAwMCDNGJDIXtKzNgyTfTdQ3uAMGRSODUHHsdO1Gun2h3nuYM/qbZakJWzuxq
LqWz+/k87pE7V9ejU1lX6/bNwaEfwm9Q
=82mk
- -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
</aol>
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200501282226
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFB+wcGvJuQZxSWSsgRAo6QAKD8ec1RrPVyzbUKNpNNOgCJKmajiQCdFze9
qvIElRiXr28bw4B/GxzXX/w=
=zCxE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
___________________________________________________________________________
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
|
|