On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 08:47:50AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote: >I wrote: >> Digital signatures are OK, if you feel it's absolutely necessary. > >On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 11:49:27PM -0500, Florin Iucha wrote: >> Now, now, Chewie... What about the digital signatures? > >I meant exactly what I said. Digital signatures are useful if and when >your emails need to be verifiable. I don't believe every post I send to >the list is all that important, so why should I sign them all? YMMV, so >I don't begrudge people who feel its necessary to sign everything. I >can envision occassions where the habitual signing of each email is >actually beneficial. I have made it a point to train myself to sign most all of my outgoing mail. If for no other reason than to remember my passphrase ;) I feel it may be important in the not so distant future to prove the validity of my communications. I also feel that by digitally signing my messages now, when the actual need is limited, I provide a solid foundation on which one can base the actually validity of my digital voice. -- Linux Administrator || Technology Specialist || Wifi Engineer http://autonomous.tv/~spencer/resume/ || spencer at autonomous.tv Key fingerprint = 173B 8760 E59F DBF8 6FD2 68F8 ABA2 AB08 49C7 4754 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20030812/667c6744/attachment.pgp