geoff wrote: | I am not convinced. For a mailing list it makes sense for all members | to be aware of message integrity problems. Not all cypherpunks have Why? I don't care that your message lacked a signature, I neither know who you are, or have any history of interactions with you. | your lisp package or Pronto Secure which make signature verification of | the 10-20 pgp signed messages per day on the list a non trivial task. I'll claim that anyone on the list who wants to check signatures could do so, and that having a 'signature bot' which would need to sign its opinions adds nothing to message security, except a single point for comprimise. | I also like the idea that cpunks provides as a byproduct a platform for | developers to test and debug their security products. We really should I see; you're offering your web site for the complete archives? Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume