dman wrote:
d> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:24:43AM +0100, Darren Coleman wrote:
d> | Yes, it does check for PGP signed messages, which is good.
d> |
d> | But digitally signed messages (like yours and mine), i.e those that
d> | require the person to buy a digital id, go through a verification
d> |
gt;
DC> > -Original Message-
DC> > From: dman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
DC> > Sent: 03 May 2002 01:53
DC> > To: Darren Coleman
DC> > Subject: Re: [SAtalk] Rules for digitally signed messages
DC> >
DC> > On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 01:20:31AM +0100, Darren
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:24:43AM +0100, Darren Coleman wrote:
| Yes, it does check for PGP signed messages, which is good.
|
| But digitally signed messages (like yours and mine), i.e those that
| require the person to buy a digital id, go through a verification
| procedure etc, are not given a
possesses a digital id and uses it when
sending an email, that should surely be worth some kind of negative
value even if it isn't much.
Daz
> -Original Message-
> From: dman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 03 May 2002 01:53
> To: Darren Coleman
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk]
On Thursday 02 May 2002 05:20 pm, Darren Coleman wrote:
> I would've presumed that SpamAssassin would give a score (presumably
> negative) for MIME attachments, in particular digitally signed messages.
> I can't imagine many spammers going to the trouble of digitally signing
> email.. :)
As has b
