I would tend to agree, looking at it objectively. On the other hand, there is something personal about getting mail, whether email or snailmail that has a personal signature on it that the inherently more secure PGP key can not provide. It may be wek but the fact that the signature carries the date encoded in it is probably not widely known. Hence the fact that the signature carries the date code and this must agree with the date of the letter affords some protection. Personally I prefer to send any mail requiring a signature as an attachment, preferably as pdf. Regards D�nes
D�nes Bogs�nyi 133 Osburn Drive MACGREGOR ACT 2615 Australia Tel: +612 62543636; Fax: +612 62786060; Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On vas�rnap, j�nius 30, 2002, at 10:26 , Julian Vrieslander wrote: > On 6/29/02 4:55 PM, "D�nes Bogs�nyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> For some people, putting their signature to their message appears to be >> important. this can be accomplished using HTML. The signature can be >> scanned in using bitmap and in that case the last five dots of the >> signature contain the date coded into them. This can act as a guard >> against forgery. > > Maybe I am missing something, but it seems that this is a very weak > protection against forgery. Better to sign with a PGP key. > > -- > Julian Vrieslander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > To unsubscribe: <mailto:Entourage-Talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage- > talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> > old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage- > talk%40lists.boingo.com/> > > -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
