Mutt/GnuPG doc initial release

[Horacio]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 07:18:33PM +0100, Owen Blacker wrote:
>=20
> Horacio wrote (2001-09-25 T 19:10 +0200):
> >
> > [*] No, we are talking of a process which gets started
> > everytime one opens a message that=B4s been digitally
> > signed, and which is a case of 1 out X messages for each
> > mailing list one is subscribed to.
>=20
> Fair point.  In which case, I can only suggest that, if it
> bothers you, you should configure your software (be it GPG
> or PGP) not to verify signatures automatically.

So I should disable one feature in my MUA (it is not PGP or
GPG that is configured to verify automatically) because some
people just do not want to make a fair and rational use of
digital signatures.

Ok, just hope you get the same type of responses to your
problems through life, as you just deserve them.

> > Which is just what I wrote.
>=20
> I had understood from what you had written that we were
> contradicting each other, but I feel that bit's
> unimportant.  :)

Well, you just misunderstood.

> > > I sign almost all my mail.  If I didn't sign it, then I
> > > might not have sent it.  Whether it's a message to my
> > > boyfriend asking what's for dinner tonight or a
> > > politically sensitive statement, I sign it.  If it's
> > > unsigned or the signature doesn't verify, then check if
> > > it's me.  I firmly believe that everyone should do the
> > > same.
> >
> > I see, meaning you don=B4t give a monkey=B4s ass whether it=B4s
> > a bother for subscribers or not???
>=20
> Frankly, no I don't.  Let me restate, I firmly believe that
> all mail should be signed.  I also believe that all mail
> should be encrypted, irrespective of how secret people want
> to keep the contents.  I militantly believe that ~all~
> communications should be encrypted.  Then messages that are
> won't look out of place.  The only problem is that it's a
> lot more hassle persuading everyone I know to install gpg
> in order to read my mails...

See, some people firmly believe that all persons should be
straight.  They are on their own right.  But they would be
wrong if they went trying to impose those beliefs in any way
whatsoever to those who are different or think different.

If you really want to advocate crypto on mail, you could do
things like adding your fingerprint at the bottom of messages
after your non-digital sig, or a page explaing why it should
always be used and a pointer to that page at the bottom of
your messages.

> > You know, it=B4s like all those annoying vcards, or those
> > long signatures with ascii-disart included.  They are not
> > big deal, but they are not good nettiquete either.
>=20
> I disagree that it is like those at all.  And, tbh, I'm not
> sure that I'd find a small vCard attachment an annoyance,
> or Ascii art, for that matter, but I don't use them because
> it's accepted netiquette.  I just don't feel that digital
> signatures are the same thing.

Alright.  I can=B4t say more about this if your rule for
measuring is that of acceptance.

> > > That's merely a different ethos.  I think that anything
> > > anyone writes is worth signing.  If it's not worth
> > > signing (and thus claiming attribution for it, for
> > > example), then it's not worth saying.  Imho, of course
> > > :o)
> >
> > Of course, iyho.
>=20
> Which is where I think the difference lies.  If that's the
> case, we may as well stop now, as I don't think either of
> us is likely to persuade the other  :o)

Right so.


--=20
Horacio