Mutt/GnuPG doc initial release
Tue Sep 25 15:12:01 2001
At 8:58 AM -0400 9/25/01, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
>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.
Correct, and all my friends know this (on a rare occasion if I fail
to sign a message for some reason they've picked up the phone and
called me to make sure that the message was from me and to send it
again, signed, just to be sure). On a list, though, much as you'd
like to think otherwise, only a handful of people are well known and
a message that is out of line for them will look forged. Otherwise,
no one cares if a message is from you are not, we're just interested
in your ideas, not you. Even when sending in code for people to use,
I would certainly hope they actually read the code before doing
anything with it (like the recently posted procmail stuff), so
signing probably doesn't do much good even there.
Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty
http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose
firstname.lastname@example.org it to mean--neither more nor less.'
PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll