> -----Original Message----- > From: fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Guy Fraser > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:51 PM > To: For users of Fedora Core releases > Cc: David Collantes > Subject: Re: signature.asc files > > Fritz Whittington wrote: > > > On or about 2004-04-27 10:31, David Collantes whipped out a > trusty #2 > > pencil and scribbled: > > > >>> "Some user complained that my PGP messages are attachments! > >>> That user is using obsolete and broken software. PGP/MIME is the > >>> only way to use PGP with email that is actually specified > (RFC 2015) > >>> and not > >>> > >> > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> Good then, I assume no one will have a problem with S/MIME signed > >> messages either, right? > >> > >> > > I certainly hope not! For years I have made it a habit to > sign all my > > email. In that way, if someone ever pops up and says I sent > > such-and-such an email, and it's NOT signed, I can argue > that it was > > forged more likely than not. OR, if it's signed but > doesn't verify, I > > can prove it's been modified. And the signed copy from my > "Sent Mail" > > archives can prove exactly what I did send. > > We don't need no stinkin' verification. > > Use pgp for official communications. > > Mailing list's are NOT official communications, and pgp is > just a waste of bandwidth. > > This list is for user support of Fedora Core 1. Unless you > work for RedHat and are making official statements, nothing > you need to say warrants pgp. > > Since you don't need pgp when communicating on public mailing > lists who cares if mozilla does not recognize you pgp > signature, it shouldn't be there anyway. > > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > I personally agree 100% here. I don't see a need for PGP verification for general list traffic.
