Jeremy T. Bouse: > On 05/11/2012 08:34 AM, Rob Owens wrote: >> >> If I someday want to send an encrypted message to the Ralf that I know >> (debian-user Ralf), I can do it. For me, knowing Ralf's personal >> identity is not as important as knowing his online identity because our >> relationship is online. As long as I don't forget that, then seeing his >> signature in emails is a potential benefit to me. >> > > GPG/PGP signatures will only ever have any real value to you if you're > part of a strong key set within the web of trust.
Please read Rob's e-mail again.
I don't need any signatures on my key in order for you to be able to
send an encrypted e-mail to "Jochen from debian-user(-german)". Your
e-mail will not be readable by anyone but the person who signed hundreds
of e-mails to this and other lists.
Another aspect: last yeas I married and adopted my wife's name. My
habit of signing public e-mails allows everyone verify that "Jochen
Spieker" is actually the same person as "Jochen Schulz" (my birth name).
My main reason for signing public e-mails is to invite people to encrypt
their e-mails to me. Signing is the easiest way to express that I (know
how to) use PGP/GPG and that I prefer encrypted communication. In my
opinion, the question is not why we should encrypt our communication,
but why we should /not/.
Of course, that is just an invitation which I think should be as
unobtrusive as possible. PGP/MIME is the best way to do that.
J.
--
Whenever I hear the word 'art' I reach for my visa card.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
