signing + mailing lists

[Anthony E. Greene]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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 <agreene@pobox.com> <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/>
PGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26  C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D
Chat:  AOL/Yahoo: TonyG05
Linux. The choice of a GNU Generation. <http://www.linux.org/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Anthony E. Greene <agreene@pobox.com> 0x6C94329D

iD8DBQE7qEmZpCpg3WyUI50RAqrKAJ4qFCDFMo4inpIVWKNUKgpXXoVvrwCeNqx+
s+TPewqME4XrNkZgcbk46xs=
=CTaX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----