On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 14:39 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote: > I would also point out one other important reason. Regressions. I've > personally helped trouble shoot several significant problems in MTA's > and filtering systems (MailScanner) when problems have cropped up where > my signature didn't verify. Problems resolved down into corruptions in > transports which then had to then be fixed. I'm not claiming that PGP has no place in email messages. I'm questioning the value of PGP signed messages in ML messages... > As I stated in an earlier message, this has to do with traffic analysis > as well as "preponderance of evidence" issues. That's two good reasons > which have been well discussed in various cryptography forums and > amongst security professionals for years. I remember having this debate > in the PGP forums on USENET some 15 years ago. If you don't agree with > it (and many still don't) that fine. I'm still signing and if someone > can't handle that, it's their problem. Preponderance of evidence? We are still talking about ML messages, right? I doubt that BigG will be sending his next Halloween message to Fedora-users ML... As for the -rude- "can't handle that, it's their problem" part, I assume that you'll silently accept the same behavior the next time someone drops a 15K HTML message with containing a picture of his pet in his signature. (Given that fact that your 8K message contains 1826 bytes of actual text...) There's an old Jewish saying that - roughly translated (to English) - goes something like this: "Do not do the things that you hate the most to your friends." I'd suggest you keep it mind. - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
