On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:57:25AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 1 01:30:57 2003 > > > > > > * Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030801 14:17]: > > > > > > Please don't clutter your posts with pgp signatures. > > > > Clutter? Says he with the five line signature! > > Yes. You are partly right and I have corrected my sig. Thank you. > > But you are also partly wrong, because my sig at least conveys > potentially useful information.
Useful? I don't know, it conveys your opinion, of course I could argue that that isn't even potentially useful ;-) > > > Most of us don't have the software to interpret them > > > > Speak for yourself. > > Well, very few people use pgp signatures on the list..... > > Some may HAVE the software, but have the good taste not to use it when > there is no point. You are right there. Are you equally bothered if the signature ends up in an attachment? I can't help thinking of something Phil Zimmermann mentioned in some text I read (I think he was the author). Some governments re trying to ban electronic encryption that they don't have a back door to so he encouraged everyone to use it, simply due to the practical difficulties with prohibiting something that everyone is doing. One might see signing emails as taking a stand for strong, cheap electronic encryption available to the masses. /M -- Magnus Therning mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP:0xD3BC7468 +31-40-2745179 http://pww.innersource.philips.com/magnus/ Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. -- Douglas Adams
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature