-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 28 January 2004 2:00 am, Collins Richey wrote:
> My $.02. The whole PGP concept is just a waste of band width on a mailing > list, with or without public keys. I could really care less whether you > are the authentic Phill Barnett (as your key may well prove) or Samuel > Johnson per your signature <g>. I'm only interested in the content. > > It's just so much crap on the screen before and after what I'm interested > in. It reminds me of the lamer who used to waste band width by including > "don't you dare send me private mail; I'll trash it" on every posting. > > So here I am wasting band width, and I know from previous experience that > those who prefer PGP are going to do it anyway. The only reason I have begun signing my messages is not to prove that they are mine, but to give some legal protection from viruses sending out emails in my name. If I can show some consistency that I always sign my messages, then I can build a defense should I be hauled into court because someone else masqueraded as me. Of course, I can't prove those messages weren't mine, but I can at least have something to stand on. Yes, it's unlikely, but with the proliferation of worms that mail using stolen credentials, I expect that we will begin seeing some auth systems built into email. Oh, wait, that's what gpg and pgp are. Now, if everyone was using gpg or pgp to sign their email, we could filter our inboxes on bad signatures, or we could trace the email back to a person. Either one would be great. You want to talk about wasting bandwidth, talk about spam, not legitimate email. - -- "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) KI4DPT -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAF8u7WMqSOYd58pwRArXtAJwN5yC4L7mooEon6r0vj3GqcwJxcwCfdGBr NNokkuedJZd6f6GdcZRMIDU= =3dnh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
