Mutt/GnuPG doc initial release

Anthony E. Greene
Tue Sep 25 15:00:01 2001

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Horacio wrote:

>On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 07:49:54PM +0200, Janusz A. Urbanowicz wrote:
>> Case 2 (real life example): a friend of mine is an active
>> usenetter, she also posts a lot to mailing lists. One day a
>> sexually suggestive (at the verge of explicit) forged
>> messaged attributed to her started to appear. PGP signing
>> was the simplest way to make a good distinction of which
>> messages come from her and which are forgeries.
>No, since most people will not have a system to check the sig
>(and most of those who have a pk system won=B4t have her key),
>this is useless at large. But, MOST IMPORTANT, she could
>post nice messages to the ng pgp-signed, and yet SHE could
>at the same time post nasty ones without a signature. What=B4s
>in her public key that I can use to verify that a non-signed
>message is not from her? This is nonsense.
Signing *all* messages establishes a consistent pattern. If the one message that is not signed also contains content that is not consistent with the purported author's normal pattern, the argument that it's a forgery becomes much more credible. Tony - --=20 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 iD8DBQE7sH9epCpg3WyUI50RAqo6AKDUvXWpVDsw0Lw1i+O/I6aunasoAgCdH9Bk zb79fchxSgC1jJu4uppqThY=3D =3D23u7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----