Preben Randhol wrote: [i'll respond to both posts since i held my tongue on the first for a while]
> "Drekka mer D. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 24/01/2002 > (19:34) : > > > The point is, it's very, very easy to forge mail to mailing lists > > (or not to mailing lists, for that matter). It's much harder to > > forge a valid, signed mail, because you need access to the victim's > > PGP _private_ key, and their passphrase. yes but first of all, it's unlikely that someone's going to forge your identity on some mailing list (and most of the time, if they do... who cares). sign your messages if you are writing about something that's actually sensitive, or that is likely to.... let's not take paranoia to a rediculous extent. also, since most people on the list don't know you in real life, all they know is that you're the same person who has always been writing email under that name and with that PGP key. there's no real advantage to doing this IMHO in most cases. yes ... we're all impressed that you have a PGP key... i have one too. but it seems to me that people on this list sign stuff way too often. > Yes but who knows? I just get information from gnupg that it cannot > verify the signed posts here as it doesn't have the public key. you can tell mutt not to automatically try and verify signed messages, or else put a keyserver in your options file - this gets most peoples' keys automatically. [aside note] i agree with recent posts about this list. this used to be one of the lists i enjoyed reading most since most people had good ettiquette (unlike many other mailing lists i'm on) and since it had a minimum of useless / rediculously long threads. however i am definitely getting close to unsubbing at this point. by all means say something if you have something constructive to add... but if you don't, then try to think for a few minutes before posting. just my $0.02 w
