On (14/09/01 09:41), David T-G wrote:
> ...and then Ailbhe Leamy said... %
> % Query: why do people pgp-sign mail to mailing lists?
>
> Why not? You put your home page in your signature, for instance; you
> have a mailing address that you list that is suitable for replies.
Having a valid From: address is hardly the same as adding a
pgp-signature to things.
Having a sigfile doesn't seem like the same thing to me, either.
> It is my not-so-humble opinion that everyone everywhere should be
> signing and encrypting all of the time, except as required (don't sign
> if you want to be anonymous or don't encrypt if the message is for
> mass distribution -- you get the idea).
Yes, but _why_?
In what way is it useful to pgp-sign or encrypt a mail that is for
distribution to a mailing list? You are aware of the fact that there are
archives?
> Everything I can do to encourage such behavior and raise everyone's
> awareness is thus a good thing. Since I don't often have to post
> anonymously (though I generally don't have a problem with those who
> do), I can sign everything.
OK. That's really useful. I see this. Er. Where's your public key? And
how do I verify that it _is_ your public key? If I can't, what possible
use could it be?
> Here, of all places, it should be no biggie; mutt can handle GPG/PGP
> with ease, and procmail/formail could strip out the signature
> entirely, and this is the group that would know how to do it.
I repeat: archives?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mutt-users/message/21394
Ailbhe
--
Homepage: http://ailbhe.ossifrage.net/
