* Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020107 15:15]: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 12:52:25PM +0000, Steve Kennedy wrote: > > Why does everyone send signed emails to the list, is it always > > necessary ? > > It slows reading down, and digests dont look so nice ... > > I can understand that certain things should be signed, but it > > seems more than not are now signed. > > This was answered on the list less than a week ago. > > My answer, one of a few: > > Signing messages, even if their content is harmless and relatively unimportant > is a good practise. If you only sign 'important' messages, then it's easy for > people to forge messages from you -- they don't need to sign it. The policy > should be that if it isn't signed, it isn't from you. > > If you sign everything, that policy is realistic. If you sign only some > messages, it is not.
I think it was me that asked the question! One problem I've found since routinely signing my mails is that the sig comes up as an unknown attachment in some circumstances. I'm looking for a way to name the signiture so that it is obvious what it is. But that's for another post) -- Nick Wilson Tel: +45 3325 0688 Fax: +45 3325 0677 Web: www.explodingnet.com
msg22456/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
