On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Daniel McCarney <dan...@binaryparadox.net> wrote:
> > On 29/11, Vincent Breitmoser wrote: > >> In short, my conclusion so far is that signed-only mails are very rarely >> useful, they are holding OpenPGP back as a solution for encrypted e-mail, >> and in the interest of usability we should not roll them out in email >> crypto solutions on equal terms with encryption. >> > > [...] > It does seem like other parts of the community haven't reached the same > conclusion. In particular I noticed today that the "Much easier Email > Crypto, by fetching pubkey via HTTPS" proposal[0] from the GnuPG folks will > by-default will sign all outgoing mail as a signalling mechanism: > [0] https://wiki.gnupg.org/WKD AFAICT the purpose of signed-only emails in [0] is only to signal OpenPGP support to recipients, who would look up the sender's public key through some other mechanism. So the signature doesn't seem important, there? Trevor
_______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list Messaging@moderncrypto.org https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
