On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:13:24PM +0200, harald@alvestrand.no said:
[snip]
> >Unless these issues -- and many more -- can be
> >finessed, the cure might be worse than the
> >disease.
>
> I thought I'd try this....
>
> is there any particular disadvantage or centralization of power implied in
> me signing this message with my PGP key?
not unless you consider the network of keyservers unduly centralized ...
> If not, is there any particular reason that I shouldn't do this all the
> time?
A small number of mail client/PGP combinations may not interoperate correctly
with your particular mail client/PGP combination. However, that's certainly
no different (and considerably less widespread) than Outlook or other clients
sending all mail as HTML, which interoperates poorly with text-only clients.
(dead horse there, I know)
> It's not a solution, but is there a downside?
None that I have seen yet (except I'm realizing that either my passphrase is
too long, or the time period for which mutt caches it is too short). I'm sure
others will have different opinions though. Also, the debate between PGP/MIME
and the older plaintext signatures is a well-worn one.
> Harald Alvestrand, wondering.....
--
Scott Francis || darkuncle (at) darkuncle (dot) net
illum oportet crescere me autem minui
Attachment:
pgp00260.pgp
Description: PGP signature