On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Rik Thomas wrote: > Since we are being pedantic... > > And it is also considered bad form to digitally sign a post to a mailing > list. Please refrain from doing so, all attachments to mailing lists > for that matter are bad form. When did that happen? Digital signatures are important. (This is not signed because I am on a system without my signing key.) E-mail is forgable. You obviously have not been on a list where someone decided to start a flame war by faking messages by members of the list. Such forgeries have happened on security lists. The problem that the particular site was having was stupid anti-virus software that cannot figure out what a digital signature was and dropped the message. I have seen security notices bounce because the anti-virus software was ignorant of signatures. That is bad. Then again, I have also seen the maintainers of ftp servers make the same claim about signatures on source tarballs "cluttering up their ftp server". (This was on a source tarball distributed by Redhat and almost every other distro out there.) How many trojans in major packages have we seen in the last few years? Too damn many! Don't bitch about signing messages until you have a better grasp of why people use them. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
