Jerry wrote: > I totally agree. I have never seen or heard any logical excuse for the > signing of list traffic.
I almost never sign anything unless I suspect the destination can at least ignore the signature. The people with whom I send e-mail (a diminishing population because most have moved to texting on cell phones, or twitter or Facebook) have no interest in security, though they sometimes act in a paranoid fashion about eavesdropping. But they refuse to do anything about it. They cannot deal with MIME signatures (at least those still using AOL), and cannot ignore them either. They hate the inline signatures too. When I do sign, it is just to draw attention to the fact I have a public key and can accept signed and encrypted e-mail. And so far, other than complaints about extraneous text in my emails, that is about it. I really get no use from it. So signing to this list, and an occasional test that my stuff is still working is the only use I get from gnupg and enigmail. The stuff I would really prefer to send encrypted I cannot send that way because those to whom I would send it could not read it (they have no software and no public keys). And if they could, they would probably save it in clear text somewhere, forward it, or whatnot. I think PGP and gnupg are really great ideas, whose time has not yet come. And by the time people realize its usefulness, the snooping community will have made it impossible to use it anymore. People sending encrypted e-mail will be disappeared. The time for that has not yet come. I hope it is postponed until after I can no longer use a computer. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 13:45:01 up 20 days, 21:11, 3 users, load average: 4.78, 4.89, 4.99 _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
