Re: Digital Sigs (was IS: ATTN: List Mom: Unnecessary smime attachments)
Re: Digital Sigs (was IS: ATTN: List Mom: Unnecessary smime attachments)
- Subject: Re: Digital Sigs (was IS: ATTN: List Mom: Unnecessary smime attachments)
- From: Sander Tekelenburg <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:45:33 +0200
At 09:25 -0500 UTC, on 2004/09/13, John C. Welch wrote:
[...]
> The problem with them is that there's no forced verification.
Nor is backing up.
> In other
> words, if all you care about is a digital sig, then you can create those on
> your own, and continue on merrily spamming, phishing, etc. An unverified
> digital signature is about as useful as a non-current spam blacklist.
I'm not arguing that digital sigs would solve the spam problem. (In fact I
didn't say anything about _why_ I think digital sigs are a good thing - just
that I think they are ;))
What digital sigs offer is a way for recipients to verify that a message was
not changed by a third party and that it is in fact from the owner of the
signing key (how much trust you put in that key is another story, and whether
its owner is who he says he is is yet another). In the case of public
messages, always signing one's messages can help as proof when someone else
is forging your messages. For the average private subscriber to this list
that will probably not matter, but suppose someone would manage to alter
messages from Chris Nebel, it could be damaging. Such cases would have far
less damaging potential if signing and verifying digital sigs would be the
standard thing to do.
--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden