Incoming from Florian Lohoff: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Will Fiveash wrote: > > I have a couple of comments about this: > > > > - Why sign most messages? Unless the information is important for > > others to verify that it came from a particular person why add the > > bloat of a signature. Beyond this I find it ironic that people sign
The "bloat" that a signed message carries is hardly bloat nowadays.
HTML mail is bloat; a text version followed by an HTML version, likely
followed with a legalese disclaimer .sig demanding you delete it if
it's not intended for you, plus multiple jpeg thumbnail attachments
... Now that's bloat! email should be text, full stop.
We used to think emacs was bloated, and compared to vi then, it was.
Now, we have Tb sized drives and GHz processors in pocket sized
supercomputers. Welcome to the 21st Century.
Signing an email with PGP/gnupg doesn't begin to reach the level of
"bloat" with what we have to work with now.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) :(){ :|:& };:
- -
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
