On Thu 14-Dec-2000 at 11:03:13AM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> This has come up before in my conversation with others. I think that
> signing all mail as a policy is a waste of resources and a potential
> source of annoyance, whether it's list mail or not. I think that
> sensitive material (code patches, or authoritative announcements of
> new software releases, or analyses of the latest Communications
> Prohibition Act, and the like) ought to be signed if possible; anyone
> who is concerned about the validity of the message can check the
> signature if they like.
I'm very inconsistent with signing mail (especially if I know it's going
to end up being viewed in Outlook) - but really all I'm doing is
encouraging people to think that _sometimes_ I don't sign my mail.
What this means is that next time somebody forges my identity, nobody
will think it's a forgery (they will just think I forgot to sign again).
Really, you should be signing everything or nothing.
Bruno
--
http://bruno.postle.net/
