on Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:22:25PM -0700, Meyer Wolfsheim (wolf@priori.net) wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
Future verifiability?
The thought crossed my mind.
This has been discussed multiple times. Tim just mentioned another obvious reason: the key may be held by certain individual readers of the list, but not the public in general. (Not likely to be the case in this particular instance, because of Hushmail's problems, but certainly a valid reason.) Signed messages can become a liability. Why provide potentially dangerous information to those who do not need it?
I suppose this has also been discussed, but if anyone has a favorite compelling argument I'd be interested in seeing it.
Someone got cluesticks for me WRT cypherpunks list protocol, and/or the cypherpunks listmanager WRT RFC 2015?
Cluesticks for you WRT mailing lists in general: don't use PGP/MIME. (Hint: try to verify a PGP/MIME signed message in a web archive.
Several Web archives include signatures. Checking, e.g.:, debian-user, I found I couldn't validate my own posts. However, archives in mbox format with full text of mail as received should work. I can think of several compelling arguments for supporting signed list messages, should the sender wish to sign. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]