Dear Alexander, you have not signed your message, so all the remarks I am going to make may not apply to the real Alexander Skwar. Maybe some villain wanted to make Alexander look daft by forging that email.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 05:36:43PM +0100, Alexander Skwar (?) wrote:
> No, it's not. Personal mails and "important" mails should be signed
> and/or encrypted. However mailinglist mails should not be encrypted,
Please learn the difference between encrypting and signing!
Sending encrypted messages to mailing lists comes with big logistic
problems. It may also be unnecessary. But you meant signing, right?
> because those mails are not important,
Are you talking about your email or about all messages sent to mailing
lists?
> and thus the overhead for signing (both processing time and
> bandwidth/hd-space wise) is just wasted.
GnuPG uses a cache to reduce this overhead. I can live with it on an
ISDN dialup line. Signatures are really small, and encrypted messages
are compressed automatically. If you receive many encrypted messages,
your hard disk will say `thank you'!
Look into the archives and into the Web to find out why PGP is a good
thing.
Cristian
--
}{ Cristian Pietsch
}{ http://www.interling.de
msg22472/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
