sign encrypted emails

Hauke Laging mailinglisten at
Sun Jan 5 11:15:54 CET 2014

Am So 05.01.2014, 10:35:44 schrieb Peter Lebbing:

> On 05/01/14 04:38, Hauke Laging wrote:
> > You are aware that is doesn't make any sense to make this claim
> > without any argument after the opposite has been claimed with an
> > argument (a very strong one)?
> Eh? You yourself start this whole discussion by making the point that
> it is, as things are now, unreliable to act differently depending on
> whether encryption is applied to the message or not.

There are two different meanings of "whether encryption is applied" 
which we must tell apart here:

1) The message arrives encrypted.

2) You know that the message has been sent encrypted.

(1) follows from (2) but not the other way round. What I say is:

a) It makes sense to act differently depending on (2).

b) It does not make much sense to act differently depending on (1).

Do you agree on (a) and (b)?

Today you hardly ever have (2). That's what I want to change.

> I really do not understand one bit why you now say this is a claim
> without any argument, I'm quite surprised.

I replied to: "One should certainly not act differently depending on the 
encryption of a message."

Maybe there is a misunderstanding (maybe even between the one I replied 
to and the one he replied to). In an earlier mail I have explained (a). 
It seemed to me that he said (a) was wrong without giving any reason for 
that claim. Maybe he meant (b) but that would not have anything to do 
with the discussion I started as (b) is the reason for me starting it.

> I agree with Robert, you're trying to solve a social problem with a
> technical solution.

In my understanding this term refers to problems which are better solved 
socially than technically. But that simply isn't the case here. Why 
should I write "I will encrypt this message to 0x12345678" in every mail 
which is boring, easily forgotten and error-prone if the problem can 
*easily* be solved technically with much better results? Why should 
people prefer to have to change their behaviour (social solution) over 
not having to change their behaviour if the second option delivers 
better results with less effort?

There has been an argument of the kind: "There is another solution to 
the problem than yours." OK. But that's not the point. The point is: 
Which is better? This is about technical guarantees. How can a social 
approach ever be better than a technical one in that area? GnuPG doesn't 
teach people to create huge keys it prevents it technically. Solving a 
social problem with a technical solution? And if so: Is that a problem?

Crypto für alle:
OpenPGP: 7D82 FB9F D25A 2CE4 5241 6C37 BF4B 8EEF 1A57 1DF5
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 572 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20140105/c625da01/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list