From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 16 18:10:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA05666 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:10:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.westbend.net (ns1.westbend.net [207.217.224.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA05661 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 01:10:19 GMT (envelope-from hetzels@westbend.net) Received: from admin (admin.westbend.net [207.217.224.195]) by mail.westbend.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18762 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:10:18 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from hetzels@westbend.net) Message-ID: <00d401bd699d$e82d3260$c3e0d9cf@admin.westbend.net> From: "Scot W. Hetzel" To: Subject: Re: Digitally Signed Messages Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:12:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -----Original Message----- From: patl@phoenix.volant.org >If it requires annoying extra steps, it IS broken. Complain >to the vendor and/or switch mailers. > Ok, maybe it is broken if I have to do the extra step. >> The real question is does Digitally Signed Messages, and HTML belong on a >> Mailing list? Absolutely NOT. > >Half right. HTML doesn't add any useful information, and obscures >the body of the message when view in non-HTML-aware MUAs. But >Digital Signatures DO add useful information, namely a verification >that the message is not a forgery and has not been tampered with. >(Within whatever trust level you assign to that particular key.) >This is just as useful in a mailing list as it is in a private >discussion. Possibly more so, since the exposure to potential >forgers is greater. > Ok, maybe they do have there place on the list, but only when sending a patch to the list, not when posting/replying to complain/suggest improvements to current. For Example: 1. Poster complains current is broken and no suggested fix (Doesn't require a Digital Signature) 2. Poster advises/replies current is broken and suggests a fix (Include a Digital Signature, that way we know who to congratulate/blame when it does/doesn't work.) ;-) Now if people would think, (Does my message really require a Digital Signature?), before posting. Any ways, thanks for your time. This will be my last post on the subject. Scot To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message