On 2/27/11 2:37 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote: > I sign *all* my e-mail except for messages sent from my mobile (in that > case, my signature tells the receiver why the message is not signed and > offers the receiver to request a signed proof of authenticity later) or > messages to people who can't receive signed messages (I had a case where > e-mails arrived empty because of the MS Exchange/Antivirus/whatever > combination at the receivers working place).
You may want to reconsider this practice. Signatures have value if they are correct, originating from a validated key, belonging to a trusted individual. If any of those are absent the signature is more or less just line noise. You cannot make any logical inferences from a signature that is bad, that comes from a non-validated key, or an untrusted individual. The overwhelming majority of signatures I've seen have been somewhere between irrelevant and useless. People tend to fetishize them something fierce. >> 2. And seeing strange MIME attachments doesn't confuse people? > > Less than strange text fragments at the head and the bottom of a message > (Some people even think they are being spammed when they see inline PGP > data), because an attachment without useful data will rather be ignored. Show me the HCI study, please. This may be a true claim, but I'm not willing to accept it as such on the basis of one person's anecdotal experiences. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
