On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:54:58 +0100 Michael Schwendt <ms-nospam-0306@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:27:57 -0500, Sean Estabrooks wrote: > > > Is there anybody left who doesn't understand that email can be > > spoofed? > > Are you serious? Many, many people look only at the from address and are > quite shocked/surprised when you mail them a message using their name > and address. Well i was half serious, i was trying to point out that anyone who knows how to use signatures also knows about spoofing. I think there are other was to deal with this problem rather than posting signatures to public mailing lists. If you restrict signatures to private correspondence i think you're likely to see the benefit without the noise it creates for those of us that don't care. I'll point out that some very high profile people who are more likely to be spoofed (Linus, Andrew Morton etc etc) haven't found it necessary to resort to including a signature in each and every message they send. People come to know you through your posting on a mailing list and aren't likely to be fooled if your name appears on a message offering them access to an adult website. Is this really something that happens a lot to you? > A GPG signature doesn't occupy as much space as some people's huge > message footers. Don't even get me started about the per message spam people think is appropriate for their signatures. ;o) Personally my fetchmail script strips the worst signatures ang GPG cruft out of all inbound messages so it's not a big problem for me. I just haven't heard a justification that convinces me that it's appropriate for a public list. I'm still left with the feeling that none of the problems you've articulated justify this particular "solution". Having said that i'm prepared to live in a world where you and others think otherwise. Cheers, Sean
