On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:36:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
And why do we need this? We could notarized emails + use or computer
readable ID cards, anyway, this in addition won't make mailing list
mails more true or less true. There's more untruth for notarized papers
than for non-notarized
This is an interesting thread for me. I can see (I think!) the various
points that have been made, but as it is, I feel, it's mostly trivial.
If I write to this list, or others, or friends, or colleagues, why do
I need to identify myself? Or require someone to find my public key to
read or
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 14:56 +, Camaleón wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 23:22:09 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 20:22 +, Camaleón wrote:
What is what you understand by dirty?
I can send the same spam, virus-inside or crap message with a signature
or without it.
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:17:17PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Regarding to security. Assumed somebody always sign the mails to a
mailing list. Isn't it possible that somebody hacks the view of a
mailing list archive? Make it look like if a nice guy said odd things
for signed mails. He never
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 17:11 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:17:17PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Regarding to security. Assumed somebody always sign the mails to a
mailing list. Isn't it possible that somebody hacks the view of a
mailing list archive? Make it look like if
The Signature from someone else:
Confidence is what you have before you understand a problem
- Woody Allen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
If this discussion can't be stopped, than perhaps we can make it a
useful thread, by not talking about how to behave or not to behave on a
mailing list, by not talking about if we won't signed emails or not.
When the subject was gpg/pgp noise Jon Dowland wrote: I clearly
explained that his key
On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:12 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
If this discussion can't be stopped, than perhaps we can make it a
useful thread, by not talking about how to behave or not to behave on a
mailing list, by not talking about if we won't signed emails or not.
(...)
If you really need
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +, Camaleón wrote:
Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will
improve security when reading/posting e-mails ;-)
AFAIK a signed message can't become dirty. So it's secure that nobody
add a word, removed a word or completely edited the
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:32:12PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
When the subject was gpg/pgp noise Jon Dowland wrote: I clearly
explained that his key was signed by another he owned, which in turn was
signed by *someone else entirely*.
A chain of unsigned keys for one and the same person, with
09.05.2012 21:09, Jon Dowland kirjoitti:
I didn't check beyond the other person: if they have sigs on their key,
then it's feasible Mika is joined to a/the web of trust. Rather than
try to manually construct such a path, I fed Mikka's key into pathfinder
web sites, but his key is not
The signature is evidence that message comes from me. If I sign all my
messages, I can say that I sign all my messages and possibly unsigned
offensive content, which is spoofed to come from my address, isn't
sent by me.
You also could lie and anyway send unsigned mails.
And why is it needed? If
Regarding to security. Assumed somebody always sign the mails to a
mailing list. Isn't it possible that somebody hacks the view of a
mailing list archive? Make it look like if a nice guy said odd things
for signed mails. He never did, the mails were not hacked, just the view
of the web page is
On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:33:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +, Camaleón wrote:
Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will
improve security when reading/posting e-mails ;-)
AFAIK a signed message can't become dirty.
What is what you
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 20:22 +, Camaleón wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:33:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +, Camaleón wrote:
Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will
improve security when reading/posting e-mails ;-)
AFAIK a
15 matches
Mail list logo
