Re: OT: More about GPG signing
On 12/05/12 01:48, Slavko wrote:
> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Fri, 11 May 2012 16:26:30 +0100 Tony van der Hoff
> <tony@vanderhoff.org> napísal:
>
>> On 11/05/12 13:23, Rob Owens wrote:
>>> Or you could manually download all the public keys that you're
>>> interested in.
>>>
>> On this list, that equates to zero. Which is why all those who sign
>> their messages are wasting their time on an ego-trip.
>>
>
> I will paraphrase your words:
>
> Why you are wasting your time on an ego-trip to fill your name in sender
> header? On this list is this information not needed and by the email
> principle is its information value equal to zero and email address must be
> enough for this purpose.
>
> regards
>
Paraphrase yes. Useful analogy I don't believe so.
A better analogy would be:-
Is the post reduced in value if Tony's was name was not added to the
sender field?
The answer is yes. Same applies if I take your name out of your post.
Try it on a case by case basis with all the posts on this list.
The answer remains yes.
Now apply the same analogy to digital signatures.
In *many* cases the value is *only* reduced in the opinion of the poster.
If the value of a digital signature is appreciated by the poster and
*not* appreciated by the recipient I'd be wary of advising the recipient
to "man up" and "adapt". It could sound like you're ordering someone to
endure just so you can feel good - an argument winnable only from a
position of constant advantage (will ultimately fail).
People have a perfect right to object to signatures - even non-PGP ones.
Just as people have a perfect right to use signatures, provided they
comply with the rules of conduct... if people don't want to download the
signature (or it's embedded pictures) it's their call, just as it's the
call of those who want to bully their signatures onto others.
I object to inline signatures - but I won't filter out the posts just
because of the signatures and I'd hope that most people are the same.
There are a number of posters on this list that I wish *would* use
digital signatures with a valid web of trust - that'd save me double
checking their information. Stan, Stephen, and several others tend to
draw from a personal store of knowledge I can't quickly verify - but I
trust their opinion. If I could verify *them* I'd be happier. But it's
not that simple - people also have a right *not* to verify themselves or
their posts. Security and privacy are inseparable.
Damn choices, free will, liberty,
mutter, mutter... ;-p
Kind regards
--
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/
Reply to: