So sprach »Cristian« am 2002-01-07 um 18:03:24 +0100 : > 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.
Even if so, it wouldn't matter much. Just because someone signed your mail with a key saying that it was from "you" doesn't mean that the mail is actually from you. > > 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? No, I meant signed and/or encrypted, because I was talking about both personal mails and mailing list mails. > > > because those mails are not important, > > Are you talking about your email or about all messages sent to mailing > lists? About 99,99% of mails sent to mailinglists. This of course also includes my mails, but also mails like your reply. > 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'! For encrypted messages, that's right, yes. However for signed messages, that's not correct. Even if the signature is small, 2000xsmall == big. > Look into the archives and into the Web to find out why PGP is a good > thing. Of course it's a good thing. No doubt about that. But not for mailinglist mails. And also not for usenet news. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de | Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iso-top.de - Die günstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 22 days 1 hour 31 minutes
