-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If you had seen my recent postings, I had signed them with my gpg key.
With spoofing of email address by the latest viruses and spam
messages verifying an email with gpg keys sounds like a viable method.
But most of the people I know don't use pgp or
I've had some problems with a logitech wheel mouse. It had a USB/PS2
interface and sometimes would not come up with X. The solution was to unplug
the thing, plug it back in and restart X with ctrl-alt-backspace. It's been
a while since I've had that problem, but that might be because it's bee
> My question, which is not technical, is how many of you guys digitally
> sign your messages?
I don't, for the same reason you mention. Most of the people I send
mail to don't use it and the extra bits just take up internet bandwidth.
It would be different if every user in my organization used
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Brad Bendily wrote:
> > My question, which is not technical, is how many of you guys digitally
> > sign your messages?
>
> I don't, for the same reason you mention. Most of the people I send
> mail to don't use it and the extra bits just take up internet bandwidth.
> It woul
- Original Message -
From: "Karthik Poobalasubramanian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 9:26 AM
Subject: [brlug-general] to sign or not to
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> If you had seen my recent postings, I had signed them with my gpg key.
> Wi
"Dustin Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a good question. I am in a situation now where I need to have
> certain emails encrypted, but it's hard to find a way to support all
> recipients. Most people don't like being told to install XYZ (e.g., PGP)
> just to support one company.
The
I had to think about that for a while, then it dawned on me that your people
must be Windows users. Who else would be afraid to install software?
My trust in Debian has grown to the point that I don't think twice about
installing any software in their tree. I love being told about software now
I thought Kmail had it.
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 05:17 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The counter argument is that there is no such thing as automatic built-in
> encryption for email. ie. it's necessarily an add-on with GPG/PGP being
> a popular and relatively inexpensive solution.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [brlug-general] to sign or not to
> "Dustin Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is a good question. I am in a situation now where I need to have
> > certain emails encrypted, b
- Original Message -
From: "Will Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [brlug-general] to sign or not to
> I had to think about that for a while, then it dawned on me that your
people
> must be Windows users. Who else would be afraid to install s
Why would they be afraid to install software?
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 05:32 pm, Dustin Puryear wrote:
> No, I am talking about people with IT departments.
Probably not afraid, just unwilling. Having to install, configure, test,
and support one little app/procedure from one company. Now multiply by 40
companies. Or 400. Each with their own little app. See?
ray
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Will Hill wrote:
> Why would they be afraid to install softwar
So the beauty of free software is apparent. Each program is as dependable as
your distro, as easy to push as page rank algorithms and as universal as
openly published standards. The thousands of tiny programs that differ from
those standards are something else.
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 05:52
Not necessarily. It's more about policies and procedures than the actual
software. You can't just say "We standardized on GPG. Life is good".
You have to consider stuff like key distribution, key sizes, are we
signing keys, who's the certificate authority, is it 3rd party,
application integra
"Dustin Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking on a related issue, a problem I have with PGP is the inability to
> have a central skeleton key, ala S/MIME with Exchange, which I think offers
> that ability.
PGP is a different trust model. At my work -- which is Navy and therefore
DOD si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 09:26 am, Karthik Poobalasubramanian wrote:
> If you had seen my recent postings, I had signed them with my gpg key.
> With spoofing of email address by the latest viruses and spam
> messages verifying an email with gpg keys so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Kory Wnuk wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tuesday 18 May 2004 09:26 am, Karthik Poobalasubramanian wrote:
> > If you had seen my recent postings, I had signed them with my gpg key.
> > With spoofin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 07:19 pm, Karthik Poobalasubramanian wrote:
> Kory,
> mutt is not able to verify your signature. I saw that you had sent it
> with Kmail so i sent one to myself and the same thing happened.Mutt
> doesn't recognize my signature in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The other thing to consider is the number 1 rule of security in IT is:
KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.
You don't just install a new app, no matter how much you believe it to be
secure, wonderful, etc. without a good reason and a lot of review. Why?
Beca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 8:46 pm, Kory Wnuk wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 May 2004 07:19 pm, Karthik Poobalasubramanian wrote:
> > Kory,
> > mutt is not able to verify your signature. I saw that you had sent it
> > with Kmail so i sent one to myself and the sam
20 matches
Mail list logo
