On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Trevor Smith wrote: > Agreed. I'm tempted too. All my musings on how relevant signing is if > you auto-download keys, I like the idea of everyone picking *some* > "identity" and signing everything. This makes sense. Not because the identity of individual messages in a public place is important but because a change in identity signals a potential problem. There is still a question about the life of a key and the process for updating to a new key as all the up2date and yum troubles remind us. BTW: There are some quality posters in this group. If one of them posted a script that included some questionable command (more subtle than "rm -r /") I might just go with it. If the signature check failed then I would be my normal cautious self. Yea, I suspect I will not use a digital signature on public lists so that all my readers keep their cautious hat on. ;-) -- T o m M i t c h e l l mitch48 -a*t- yahoo-dot-com
