On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> More often "I have no confidence they keep their secret keys strictly under >> their control" might be the relevant objection. > > In my case, it's "I think these individuals are mentally unstable and > violent," but yes. :) > >>> Speaking for Enigmail, it's because 99% of the time signatures are >>> worthless. They contribute to the illusion of data integrity while >>> actually providing no guarantees. >> >> You mix up the absence of a guarantee with being worthless. > > Show me the worth in a signed message that has any of (a) an incorrect > signature, (b) from an invalid key, or (c) from someone you believe is > utterly untrustworthy.
With (c), you can then have some assurance that their untrustworthiness has been faithfully maintained in the message since it was signed... ;) David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
