On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 23:59, David Blevins wrote: > You wouldn't need to encrypt *and* sing a message. Oh yes you need. Encryption assures that only the intended recipient can read it. Signature assures the identity of the sender. > Actually encrypting messages with pgp would prevent them from being read > but would be a total pain as you would need their public key first (i > don't think pgp does symmetric encryption). That's the whole purpose: put mail in envelopes instead of postcards. Nobody complained so far: "Oh, it's a pain to cut envelopes: send me postcards"... > To sign the email, you'll just need to attach the digital signature as an > attachment with the right MIME type. The email itself will still be > readable. This only makes sense if people are actually going to check the > signatures, how many people do that. I do. > I've seen a few signed messages on > the list, but never bothered to ask people for their public key to verify > it. ... florin -- NT is to UNIX what a doughnut is to a particle accelerator. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20030618/2f149b66/attachment.pgp