Hi Dierk, > There has been quite a discussion in the last year about secure > signing or not.
I missed it, I joined this list about a month ago. > Without going into the details, let me just say that I am all for > it. That may be my problem, that I don't understand the benefits of secure signing in general, and for a list like this in particular. I may have to do some reading about PGP, etc., and see if I understand. > But I have refrained from doing it on the TB! lists due > to many people complaining about the added footprint of them. But the big footprint is not just caused by secure signatures, at least the way I see it. As an example to explain what I mean let's take one of these "Me too!" messages ( and by "me too" here I mean a short 1 line text). - First you get the RFC-822 headers. We don't normally look at them, at least I don't, but they are there. Quite huge some times. And on messages coming from this list with all kinds of information and URLs about the list. I think some times it even includes the birthday date of the youngest nice of the moderator ;-) - Then messages from some of you tell us that it is a PGP signed one. - Then some of you, on replies, tell us _again_ who you are replying to, even with the original message ID some times, and what time it was in 2 or 7 different parts of the world when when the originator wrote his message and when you received it, and many times even repeating the subject of the message. I assume that everybody in this list uses TB, don't all of you take advantage of threading? - Then some people quote the whole original message, or big parts of it. Again, what about threading? - Then you write "Me too!". - Then, finally, a normal signature. This is nice and polite. But some time perhaps too big with full address details, etc., etc. - Then information about TB version being used. Normal and needed in a list like this. - Then maybe a rather long Cookie. When reading and writing to this list I assume we are mainly interested about TB, possible problems and ways to do things. But, who cares about what John Doe thinks about French fries? - But we are not finished yet. Then comes the PGP signature, some times rather long, so I will know that it was you who wrote "Me too!" and that you did write "Me too!". Correct? - But we are not done yet either. Then comes the information added by the list server, telling us again when is the birthday of the youngest moderator's nice and which is already in the RFC-822 headers - And then, finally, like in my own messages until I register (if I do) MailScan and can get rid of it, maybe a "disclaimer" saying that this message has no virus. And all of that to just say "Me too!". It does seem quite a waste to me. > As for S/MIME, I am not a big fan of it, regard it actually as just a > clever marketing scheme not giving much security. the arguments for > this can be read up in several places, like the Introduction to PGP by > Phil Zimmermann. As I have said above, I probably need to do some reading about PGP, etc. > all of that said, I can't help you with your problem, but can't really > imagine that the sig is the culprit. There has to be something else. I have no idea what may cause the problem, I just wanted to say that "Me too!" <g> had seen the same problem as Geoff. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.53d ************************************************************** Scanned by MailScan Content-Security and Anti-Virus Software. Visit http://www.mwti.net for more info on eScan and MailScan. ************************************************************** -- ________________________________________________________ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
