Hello, 2011/1/11 Martin Gollowitzer <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > * jimbob palmer <[email protected]> [110111 12:05]: >> In Firefox I can sign or encrypt or encrypt+sign an e-mail. >> >> In what case would I want my encrypted emails also signed? Does it >> provide any additional benefit over a pure encrypted email? > > A digital signature is useful so the sender can check if that message > was really sent by you. If it's only encrypted, there is no proof for > that since everyone who knows the recipient's public key can encrypt > messages for this particular person.
So encrypting an e-mail only provides a guarantee that the recipient can read the message. It provides no guarantees about the sender. Signing the message guarantees the sender. Okay, I understand this. The question is, why on earth is the default for encrypted email not to sign too (I'm talking about anything that talks to gpg, like thunderbird). I suppose this might take me off topic. and would dkim be enough instead of signing the encrypted e-mails? Thanks. > > All the best, > Martin > > -- > The early worm is for the birds. > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > > _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
