[linux-elitists] On spam, stamps, and hygiene
Fri Feb 6 14:37:59 PST 2004
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 01:36:06PM -0800, Mister Bad wrote:
> So, I find it wondersome that so few of these media discussions bring up the
> issue of digital signatures. Signed mail is not forged mail. Signed mail
Which: inline'd, or maimed? Latter will be stripped, cause much anguish among
>60% of MUA base, or outright bounced or rejected.
> does not break SMTP, MIME, or other standards. Signed mail does not require
> a central authority to authenticate mail. Signed mail is better.
Chugging out certs by the metric shitload is cheap; so is setting up faux
trust networks. Trust is just an integer. It's only good if it's close to
node that are you. But that's highly nontrivial to deploy blanketly, in a
world that even can't handle plain signatures right.
> This message is not signed because I don't trust the server yet. But it should
> be! Reject this message!
Don't put gift in a wooden horse's mouth; it's all Greek to me.
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20040206/fcdde249/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists