signing + mailing lists

Anthony E. Greene
Wed Sep 19 09:33:01 2001

Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Justin R. Miller wrote:

>There has been some involved discussion on the mutt-users list about
>digitally signing messages sent to mailing lists, with plenty of good
>arguments on both sides. I'm curious as to what peoples' opinions over
>here are.
I like signing everything because it establishes a track record. I only did it occasionally when I stopped using a mail client that made it easy. Then I setup pgp4pine and the whole process takes barely more time than sending unsigned. Incoming messages are decrypted/verified transparently. Pine only displays the GPG output, so I never see the armor headers or signature block. All I see is 2-8 lines of GPG status messages at the end of the message. With tools like pgp4pine or a correctly configured GUI plug-in, it's easy to sign and verify mail. Another reason I sign everything is to spread knowledge of PGP/GnuPG. Imagine that PGP and/or GnuPG were regularly being used by just 25% of U.S. Internet users. There would be little support in Congress for restrictions on domestic crypto use. Tony - -- Anthony E. Greene <> <> PGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D Chat: AOL/Yahoo: TonyG05 Linux. The choice of a GNU Generation. <> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Anthony E. Greene <> 0x6C94329D iD8DBQE7qEmZpCpg3WyUI50RAqrKAJ4qFCDFMo4inpIVWKNUKgpXXoVvrwCeNqx+ s+TPewqME4XrNkZgcbk46xs= =CTaX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----