On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 07:51:55PM -0800, rex wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 03:43:04AM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 01:48:19PM -0800, rex wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 01:23:19PM +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This way I strongly recommend everybody to use 'set psp_encryptself' in
> > > > ~/.muttrc (for PGP) or 'encrypt-to 0xKEYID' in ~/.gnupg/options (for GnuPG)
> > > > instead of saving (encrypted) mails in plaintext...
> > >
> > > This is very dangerous if you ever wish to be anonymous because anyone
> > > can see your identity. It's all too easy to forget to unset this option
> > > when sending an anonymous message (don't ask how I know :).
> >
> > You miss the point... If you encrypt a mail, the recipiant will _need_ your
> > public key. Thus he knows your identity regardless whether or not you en-
> > crypted that mail _for_ your key, too. If you sign your mail, the recipiant
> > will notice your keys UIDs as well.
>
> Wrong. If Tom wishes to send Sam an anonymous encrypted message, Tom
> encrypts the message using *Sam's* public key and sends the message
> through a few remailers. When Sam receives the message, he decrypts it
> using his private key. Sam doesn't need to know who the sender is,
> much less know his public key. If Tom is foolish enough to encrypt to
> himself, *anyone* who looks at the message can see that Tom is
> involved and is probably the author of the message. Even though they
> cannot read the message, they know Tom is communicating with Sam.
> Think traffic analysis.
*Oops*, you're right of course... _I_ mixed things up since I normally
sign any mails (and encrypted mails, too). So my view was that I can always
be verified to be the really sender..
> > I think you wanted to write about 'set pgp_autosign' in .mutttrc? Well, I've
> > set this, as I don't write spam^Wanonymous mails, but maybe you have a
> > real use of anonymous mails?
>
> No, I did not want to write about autosign, though it's a more obvious
> security risk.
>
> Yes, I do have real uses of anonymous mail, however, if I told you
> why, I'd have to kill you. ;) Seriously, anonymous mail is like any
> other tool in that it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly.
Well, even if I can't just right now think of a real-world use of anon
mails, you're right in what you're writing about sigs. To auto-sign mails
(lots of mails per day...) you'll probably sign a mail which you _didn't_
want to sign...
> FWIW, I detest spammers to the point that I endorse tracking them down
> and visiting them (along with a couple of ~300 pound "associates") in
> MeatSpace for a little chat about why spamming is not a good idea.
*evil grin*
> > PS: What's your real name, 'rex'?
>
> Not that it matters, but my real name *is* "rex."
>
> Sorry for the OT post, but it's important for every PGP user to know
> that automatically encrypting to self is a security risk that is
> easily forgotten about. Keeping a copy in the clear and encrypting
> the mail directory is a much safer solution.
...as long as you wouldn't like to stamp yourself as the reliable original
sender, yes. I normally do it that way, but others may want to do it the other
way around...
MfG, JBG
--
Fehler eingestehen, Größe zeigen: Nehmt die Rechtschreibreform zurück!!!
keyID=0x8399E1BB fingerprint=250D 3BCF 7127 0D8C A444 A961 1DBD 5E75 8399 E1BB
PGP signature
