On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 19:46, Philip Mak wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:11:11PM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > > Is there a reason that companies who want to send legit mail that > > looks spammy can't just PGP/GPG sign it? This way, a user can be > > sure of the source. > > Most people probably wouldn't know how to setup PGP/GPG; not everyone > is a technical user. (Even I don't know how to do it, although I > suppose I could figure it out if I needed to. I haven't needed to so > far.) And PGP/GPG is not available on many mail readers.
The fact that the email is signed could make a difference. According to http://spamassassin.org/tests.html, PGP_SIGNATURE and PGP_SIGNATURE_2 are -.5 and -.7 which would give them extra breathing room in case they turn up positive otherwise. -- ************************************************************** Jeremy Turner, Help Desk Supervisor Phone: 405.425.5555 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 405.425.1820 Information Technology Services, Oklahoma Christian University ************************************************************** Linux jturnermac 2.4.19 #10 Mon Oct 14 13:14:58 CDT 2002 ppc unknown unknown GNU/Linux 20:30:01 up 21 days, 7:00, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.08, 0.02 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
