Re: digital signature request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: gnulinux@xxxxxxxxxxx

> ...
> > Having the latest tools means nothing, unless they are used right.  Are 
>
> i'm using them correctly

I, for one, am unconvinced.  I have had no trouble filtering unwanted
mail from this list, thanks to procmail.  My various filters have no
trouble dealing with more than 99.9% of the unsolicited bulk mail
including viruses and worms directed at my mailbox.  For my mail, my
filters have a total false positive rate (legitimate rejected divided
by total legitimate) of less than 0.1%.  Whether your filters are doing
as well as you want them to does not seem like a concern of the IETF.

> ...
> the value in having the list processor sign all posts 
> is simple.  guaranteed identification of the list 
> traffic for any recipient who decides to verify 
> signatures.  

I think it would be simpler for all concerned and in this case just
as effective if the IETF list processor would offer to do SMTP-TLS and
for an appropriate cert to be published on http://ietf.org/

However, I would not suggesting that for any practical or operational
reason.  It would merely set a good example. 


Vernon Schryver    vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]