On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:47:50AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
>I wrote:
>> Digital signatures are OK, if you feel it's absolutely necessary.
>
>On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 11:49:27PM -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
>> Now, now, Chewie... What about the digital signatures?
>
>I meant exactly what I said.  Digital signatures are useful if and when
>your emails need to be verifiable.  I don't believe every post I send to
>the list is all that important, so why should I sign them all?  YMMV, so
>I don't begrudge people who feel its necessary to sign everything.  I
>can envision occassions where the habitual signing of each email is
>actually beneficial.

I have made it a point to train myself to sign most all of my outgoing
mail.  If for no other reason than to remember my passphrase ;)  I feel
it may be important in the not so distant future to prove the validity
of my communications.  I also feel that by digitally signing my messages
now, when the actual need is limited, I provide a solid foundation on
which one can base the actually validity of my digital voice.

-- 
Linux Administrator || Technology Specialist || Wifi Engineer
http://autonomous.tv/~spencer/resume/ || spencer at autonomous.tv
Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2  68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20030812/667c6744/attachment.pgp