Re: why bother signing? (was Re: What email encryption is actually in use?)
Ben Laurie wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:07:50PM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 04:45 PM 10/3/02 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
-- James A. Donald wrote:
If we had client side encryption that "just works" we would be seeing a few more signed messages on this list,
Ben Laurie wrote:
Why would I want to sign a message to this list?
Then all the people who read this list, were they to receive a communication from you, they would know it was the same Ben Laurie who posts to this list.
But Ben is not spoofed here!
He is now.
Cheers,
Ben.
I will confirm this as a (detectable) spoof :-) Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
On Saturday 05 October 2002 07:34, Ben Laurie wrote:
Ben Laurie wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:07:50PM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
But Ben is not spoofed here!
He is now.
Cheers,
Ben.
I will confirm this as a (detectable) spoof :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
Ah, but how do we know that that wasn't the spoofer "confirming" his own spoof? (That's not an entirely joking question. Not enough headers make it through the mailing list and my ISP for me to tell the difference b between the two "Ben Laurie" messages cited above.) -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Vote Idiotarian --- it's easier than thinking
participants (2)
-
Ben Laurie -
Steve Furlong