On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:40:23 -0500 Robert J. Hansen articulated: > I liked hearing the "Gee, look at the time, gotta go" answer. It > seemed to be the most honest. > > YMMV, and banks are definitely different beasts from voting > authorities.
I used to get the "Gee" bit to when I asked for a raise. Anyhow, I am willing to bet that most, if not all banking establishments do not verify signed mail, or if they do they want S/MIME since their user base is vastly Microsoft orientated and S/MIME is favored on that architecture. An unverified signed document is about as useful as tits on a bull. I receive from time to time a signed document on various forums that is shown as bad by my MUA (claws-mail). Usually, it is just out of date. Occasionally, I get a revoked one though. Again, it is usually due to the PEBKC phenomenon. In any case, I have never considered the signature to be of any importance in a mail forum environment. I know that some users do, and that is their right. The only problem I have is with those friggin "inliners" whose signature Spams up the page and makes a "sig-delimiter" impotent. Then, of course, there are those intellectually challenged who fail to trim out that superfluous crap before replying to it. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
