From: michael libby Date: 2002-11-06T09:35:47+09:00 Subject: Re: PGP on the list -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 06:40:32, Paul Duncan wrote: > In case you're interested, here's the original thread regarding my signed > messages: > http://www.ruby-talk.org/38584 (the complaint) The complaint is about attachments, not signatures per se. There are methods of PGP-signing messages that do not use the MIME/attachment method, and I would encourage their use as they are less fragile. On Tuesday 05 November 2002 17:25, Gavin Sinclair wrote: > Fair enough that signing messages is something you believe in, but there > is no good reason to sign messages to a public list. It's a > contradiction. It is not remotely a contradiction-- it's merely a strong form of authenticating the identity of the sender (as opposed to relying on email addresss). If the message were encrypted, *that* would be a contradiction. > I don't think it would be unreasonable for list policy to discourage it > for much the same reason as it discourages HTML - lowest common > denominator, and smaller message size. I wouldn't use a list that forbade PGP-signed messages. I am perfectly willing to use the non-attachment/non-MIME methods available for signing messages, however... And if you're that concerned about message size, maybe you'd like me to gzip them before I hit send? ;) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9yGOW4ClW9KMwqnMRAnAZAJ0ReKr9JAu+Fg8uPunjP655rq5DRwCgl/oC GXegs8UJMVCUpGlWv53ztI8= =Mlyw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----