Re: [OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-10 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 14:56 +, Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2012 23:22:09 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 20:22 +, Camaleón wrote: > > >> What is what you understand by "dirty"? > >> > >> I can send the same spam, virus-inside or crap message with a signature >

Re: [OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 20:22 +, Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:33:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +, Camaleón wrote: > >> Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will > >> improve security when reading/posting e-mails >;-) >

Re: [OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Camaleón
On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:33:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +, Camaleón wrote: >> Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will >> improve security when reading/posting e-mails >;-) > > AFAIK a signed message can't become dirty. What is what

Re: [OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +, Camaleón wrote: > Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will > improve security when reading/posting e-mails >;-) AFAIK a signed message can't become dirty. So it's secure that nobody add a word, removed a word or completely edited the