| Mike Leone on 29 Jan 2005 03:53:50 -0000 |
|
Jeff Abrahamson wrote: > 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. In my case, I don't always sign, because I sometimes don't feel like typing in my passphrase. Call me lazy. :-) Other times, like now, I sign because I can, not necessarily because it's important. > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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 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
|
|