Re: [TCLUG:11699] Messages As Attachments [was Re: [TCLUG:11633]Ipaddress timouts]

[Thomas Veldhouse <veldy@visi.com>]

On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Eric M. Hopper wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 12:26:25AM -0600, Scott Dier - dieman wrote:
> 	If your mailer doesn't understand multipart/signed well enough
> to give you the unsigned text without having to open an attachment, it's
> time for a new mailer.
> 
I use Outlook Express 5.0 when in Windows.  I think that is new enough,
don't you?

> 	As to why I sign everything...
> 
> 	Who knows, someone could break into my computer tomorrow and
> untraceably send all kinds of stuff as me.  I've had that kind of thing
> happen before.

And if they broken into your computer they could send messages signed as
you too.  It would be a trivial matter to break the password (if you are
even using one for each mail you send) when the public and private key is
available.

> > 	It's also a way of spreading my signature far and wide, so
it's > harder to forge.

Do you think that anybody is archiving it?  If in newsgroups, then just
the occasional signed posting will accomplish that.

> 
> 	And lastly, it's to spark discussions like these, so people
> suddenly have a much better idea of what GPG/PGP and signing are about.
>
I have been aware of PGP signing for years.  I personally find it a hassle
when you have to use both Windows and Unix client mail programs.
Especially with the multiple versions of PGP out there.
 
> 	I see this as something like the ! path vs. @ wars, or gif vs.
> png.

No, it is not like that at all.  You could sign your message in the
traditional way and there would not be a problem with ANY mail program.
But you don't - which I for one, find annoying.

Thomas T. Veldhouse
veldy@visi.com