On Jun 25, 2014, at 5:52 AM, rysiek <[email protected]> wrote: > Dnia środa, 25 czerwca 2014 11:20:50 stef pisze: >> i noticed lots of users pgp-sign their mails to mailing-lists. what exactly >> is the reason/usecase/attackvector you defend against for that? what >> exactly is the reason for doing so on public mailing lists? and why does it >> make sense to sign irrelevant messages like "+1" or "just kidding" - >> assuming no stego usecase is in play. > > One more reason: spreading the word about GPG/PGP. This actually helps get > people interested in encryption, and helps also inform people that do have a > GPG/PGP key (but for different reasons do not use them on a general basis), > that here's a person that does use it, and it's possible to encrypt e-mails > to > that person. > > Which might not be all that important on cpunks, I give you that, but a rule > is a rule. ;)
I do it to let the people I am communicating with through plaintext email know that I am setup and configured to handle encrypted communications. All they need to do is pull my pub key off of a key server and then our communications are encrypted from that point forward. The prevention of being impersonated is also one reason, along with a way to secretly signal to the recipient that I am under duress and my words may not be my own. Course that all goes out the window when emailing from my cellphone. That ain’t no way I want my private key on my cellphone. Thank you, Scott Blaydes ========================\ /---------------------------------------------------------- [email protected] \ / *BSD/Linux Advocate crypto user GPG 096EECF0D8A2381E \/ Society for Better Computing Ethics gpg key on keyserver / \ http://sbce.org/ -------------------------------------------/ \==================================
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
