Re: [OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP
On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:33:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will
>> improve security when reading/posting e-mails >;-)
> AFAIK a signed message can't become dirty.
What is what you understand by "dirty"?
I can send the same spam, virus-inside or crap message with a signature
or without it. That changes nothing.
> So it's secure that nobody add a word, removed a word or completely
> edited the message. This might be a kind of security some people wish
> to have.
You can still get false-positives that make the signature cannot be
properly verified so you think the message is not legitimate while it is.