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. Maybe I read too much in that "absolutely". > 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? I sign my messages to attract people's attention on message security. People do not encrypt their messages because: - they don't know it can be done, - they don't know how it can be done, - their partner doesn't know how it can be done, although they routinely place their paper-space messages in sealed envelopes. I am trying to raise the awareness: if people will see the signature enough, they might become curious and learn more about it. > 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. > > Regardless, does that clear up any confusion I may have caused? _Absolutely_ not. Cheers, florin -- Don't question authority: they don't know either! -------------- 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/f2a8626b/attachment.pgp