Signed, anonymous...(was Re: Getting Bush...)

[Karsten M. Self]

on Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:22:25PM -0700, Meyer Wolfsheim (wolf at 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 at 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]