On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 16:53 +1200, Franck Martin wrote: > I wonder if we could add to this list, that non digitally signed e- > mails and invalid digitally signed e-mails get held for approval. I don't think that will scale too well when the list gets active. And white-listing someone once they're been approved gives the spammers a tidy list of which sender addresses to fake. "Be liberal in what you accept" should apply to the IETF mail server as well. > > I would be nice that the IETF members of this list show the way by > enabling at least GPG or s/mime for digital signing of all their > messages to the list. Don't get me wrong: encouraging people to use pgp is a good idea, but making it a requirement before accepting it is a policy decision that the end user should be making, not the list.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part