On Thu Oct 17 18:47 -0600, Vincent Danen wrote: > > On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 04:05 PM, Levi Ramsey wrote: > > [...] > >GPG encryption is not needed. However, on a mailinglist which is (in > >theory) doing mission critical stuff, I don't think GPG sigs detract in > >any way. > > Nope, I like it when people use them. I can see, at a glance, that who > I think wrote the message did in fact write the message. I'm not keen > on forgers, nor reading their fake mails, so this is a nice thing to > have. And, I hope, it gives people confidence when reading mail from > me that I did in fact write it.
Exactly. If someone were to impersonate you on the discuss list or (say) gc on cooker that could have serious repercussions (which is why for major contributors and mdk employees, gpg comes in handy). For someone more like myself, I'm not sure that whether or not I sign my emails has any bearing on anything... -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Love lies in pools of questions. GPG Key Fingerprint: 354C 7A02 77C5 9EE7 8538 4E8D DCD9 B4B0 DC35 67CD Currently playing: Stone Temple Pilots - Coma Linux 2.4.19-16mdk 21:40:00 up 14 days, 20:05, 14 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
