On Saturday, December 16, 2000 (CS:6.50.351) 00:51:02 [AM] (-0800)
ESP [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote...
As you've so kindly demonstrated, so is most list traffic.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
BEG mh
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Linux - millions
On Saturday, December 16, 2000 (CS:6.50.351) 12:42:49 [PM] (-0600)
Brian Minton [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote...
yes, but not completely, since at a later time, you can always produce your
public key at a later time if necessary to prove that you did in fact write a
given message, or that you did
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:00:34PM +0100, Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Saturday, December 16, 2000 (CS:6.50.351) 12:42:49 [PM] (-0600)
Brian Minton [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote...
yes, but not completely, since at a later time, you can always produce your
public key at a later time
On Thursday, December 14, 2000 (CS:4.50.349) 18:08:48 [PM] (+0100)
Werner Koch [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Lars Hecking wrote:
IMHO signing list email is a useless and wasteful exercise, especially
if the sender hasn't submitted his/her keys to the public
On Thursday, December 14, 2000 (CS:4.50.349) 18:44:14 [PM] (+)
Bruno Postle [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote...
I'm very inconsistent with signing mail (especially if I know it's going
to end up being viewed in Outlook) - but really all I'm doing is
OK. In Outlook the signature is shown as an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"WK" == Werner Koch
"Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically"
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:24:10 +0100
WK On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Champion wrote:
Having the signatures come up, and my mailer and OpenPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I would first like to thank Graham, Brian, and Andrew for their responses to
my question regarding clearsigning my emails. As you can see, this message is
clearsigned.
Now, I what I would like to do is configure Mut so that it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I would first like to thank Graham, Brian, and Andrew for their responses to
my question regarding clearsigning my emails. As you can see, this message is
clearsigned.
Please trim your lines to 72-76 chars per line. Thank you.
IMHO signing list email
On 2000.12.14, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"Lars Hecking" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO signing list email is a useless and wasteful exercise, especially
if the sender hasn't submitted his/her keys to the public keyservers.
In this situation, those who have configured their encrytion
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Champion wrote:
Having the signatures come up, and my mailer and OpenPGP client freeze
while I wait to download a signature that might and might not be on the
And on a slow box (mine) it even freezes during signature
verification. It would be much better if Mutt has
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Lars Hecking wrote:
IMHO signing list email is a useless and wasteful exercise, especially
if the sender hasn't submitted his/her keys to the public keyservers.
Well, that depends on the content of the mail. But you are right,
for the bulk of ML traffic, there is no
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Werner Koch muttered:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Champion wrote:
Having the signatures come up, and my mailer and OpenPGP client freeze
while I wait to download a signature that might and might not be on the
And on a slow box (mine) it even
On Thu 14-Dec-2000 at 11:03:13AM -0600, David Champion wrote:
This has come up before in my conversation with others. I think that
signing all mail as a policy is a waste of resources and a potential
source of annoyance, whether it's list mail or not. I think that
sensitive material (code
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 11:03:13AM -0600, David Champion wrote:
I think that
signing all mail as a policy is a waste of resources and a potential
source of annoyance, whether it's list mail or not.
[...]
anyone who is
concerned about the validity of the message can check the signature if
they
14 matches
Mail list logo
