From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2002-11-06T15:21:10+09:00
Subject: Re: PGP on the list

From: "michael libby" <x@ichimunki.com>


> 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.

Quite right.  I was wrong in the first place (I usually bundle signature +
encryption into the same box in my mind).  Nevertheless, there is no practical
need for it on a public list.  Has anyone ever seen any thread accusing someone
of being an imposter?

> > 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? ;)

Of course not :)  Arguing about message size on this point would be useless -
but it's only a matter of extent between that and HTML (for which message size
is often trotted out).  Of course, with MS Word HTML output, it's not extend,
but magnitude :)

More to the point is the signal-noise ratio.  Your message, to which I'm
replying, had a lot of garbage in it at the top and bottom.  Being a good
netizen, I get rid of that when replying.  That's an impost on me, an impost I
would argue is greater than any benefit you or the group derive from signed
messages.

(Not that I'm demanding an end to the practice; but these points deserve to be
made.)

Gavin