On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 08:52:41AM -0600, ja...@beau.org wrote: > > And then there's what Jamie said: By all being private, we make the > > truly private stand out less. I haven't yet gotten to the point of > > using privacy I don't need personally, as is obvious by this unsigned > > email. > > > SteveT > > A friend of mine has a bit of a conspiracy theory going - asking why there > is no e-mail program that defaults to at *least* signing messages > cryptographically, if not using encryption as a default. He has a point: > none of the major distros set up their e-mail clients to default to > signing, or anything - why not? > > Sure, it's not the super-privacy-protective that heads or tails provides, > but signing at least provides some confirmation that things haven't been > changed along the way.
What default cryptographic identity would it use? -- hendrik > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
