Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically

14 Dec 2000 09:48:31 -0800

Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "DC" == David Champion <> 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 <> | "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 - Unsubscribe by sending mail with a subject of "unsubscribe" to