Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically

[ESP]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "DC" == David Champion <dgc@uchicago.edu> writes:

    DC> This has come up before in my conversation with others.  I
    DC> think that signing all mail as a policy is a waste of
    DC> resources and a potential source of annoyance, whether it's
    DC> list mail or not.

What resources, exactly? Randomness? Or maybe you think the 100-byte
overhead per message is too much for the delicate network
infrastructure of the Innurnet?

    DC> I think that sensitive material (code patches, or
    DC> authoritative announcements of new software releases, or
    DC> analyses of the latest Communications Prohibition Act, and the
    DC> like) ought to be signed if possible; anyone who is concerned
    DC> about the validity of the message can check the signature if
    DC> they like.

One value of signatures that you didn't point out is establishing
identity for people who don't meet face to face. When you get an email
from me in two months asking for a loan of $10,000, you'll know that
it was the same guy who sent a gnupg-users list email in Dec 2000,
since the signatures will be the same. Do you need to know who I am
now? No. Will you need to know in the future? Maybe.

Lastly, that semi-political agenda you mentioned? It's
worthwhile. Making signatures and encryption a part of everyday usage
is valuable.

~ESP

- -- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           ESP <evangelo@pigdog.org> | http://pigdog.org/
       "Fan belts break at 3AM. I get mad, drinks get spilled."
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE6OQflbZezvPSYodkRAuGSAJ0Yr7/6LVsLTIpvXF5Zt4MHms/i9gCeOzS1
fej+QdYYDeqrL67qMFUOKVE=
=sL6H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Archive is at http://lists.gnupg.org - Unsubscribe by sending mail
with a subject of  "unsubscribe"  to gnupg-users-request@gnupg.org