Mutt/GnuPG doc initial release

Owen Blacker
Fri Sep 28 12:36:01 2001

Hash: SHA1

Horacio wrote (2001-09-28 T 12:06 +0200):

> > Maybe you shouldn't be using this MTA if it slows down your
> > reading so much just because of signed messages.
> Ok, while comparisons are not always fair, sometimes can be
> used as a means to make someone understanding. Let=B4s try
> this simple one:
> A car horn is meant to be used for warning against and accident.
> Yet, many people make an abusive use of it. I hate that. But, does
> it mean that I should cover my ears to avoid hearing it? Being able
> to hearing the horn when a car is bumping into me is far more
> important.
Of course. Thought surely you must also recognise our right to ignore your complaints and decide that you're complaining about nothing.
> I know that I=B4m left no choice but to put up with it, but at least I
> have the right to complain about some people=B4s bad mannered and
> uncivilized behaviour. Obviously, neither you nor Owen will think
> it is uncivilized (ok, now I=B4m back to signatures here), since you
> seem to enjoy it. Perhaps uncivilized is a word fit for the
> example, but not for the abuse of digital signatures... let=B4s just
> say bad mannered and selfish.
I'm sure there will be other people who agree with you but haven't bothered saying so, but I feel I must point out that I have signed almost every email I have sent in the last three years and you are the ~only~ person to have complained. Ever. Does that make me selfish or you oversensitive? :o)
> > Alternatively you could write a procmail filter which
> > removes signatures from messages send to mailing lists. As
> > you are using mutt (at least that's what your X-Mailer
> > header tells me) it's very likely that you are using
> > procmail already to convert inlined signatures to PGP/MIME
> > signatures. So why not simply remove signatures from
> > mailing list messages.
> No, just because it would strip the useless signatures as well as
> the useful ones.
But you could, surely, set your client not to verify signatures unless you decided you actually wanted to. pine has a pipe command -- I would be stunned if mutt didn't too -- it would allow me, if I chose to do it this way, to authenticate only the messages I chose to do so. That sounds like exactly what you seem to want. That way, you don't need to request that it check the signature, unless it's a message you deem important enough actually to have merited signing.
> > > Of course you don=B4t find it an annoyance! You are the
> > > one who annoys others with it!
> >
> > You shouldn't generalise your opinion to others. Owen
> > doesn't annoy me. But of course I'm guilty of the same
> > crime. :-)
> I=B4m not, in fact I presume there are people who are annoyed with it
> and others who are not (e.g. all of you who, imo, (ab)?use it). I
> didn=B4t use "others" to mean "everyone". As with everything else in
> life, there is enough people to stand in one side and the opposite.
Indeed. Life would be very boring, if we didn't have contrary opinions to discuss... :) O x - --=20 Owen Blacker | Senior Software Developer and InfoSecurity Consultant See -- more about my PGP keys Sig 0x3e2056b9 | 18cd 92aa 32aa 81b9 f5e8 c520 6475 6239 3e20 56b9 - -- They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see iD8DBQE7tFIfZHViOT4gVrkRAhU/AJ4vWJywiMzvGB0Lur+zedvkM42FKACaAzvg WXBTfXMXXH7T7wSZj/7YJSY=3D =3DQbLr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----