Re: OT: More about GPG signing
--- On Fri, 5/11/12, Scott Ferguson <scott.ferguson.debian.user@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Not necessarily. If there were several users with the same name on this list, a full email address would be a better identifier than name. And if someone decided to use the same name AND email address as another user, signing one's messages would be a good idea to avoid confusion/misrepresentation.
Anyway, this interesting discussion seems to begin going in circles, so the important points for me are:
1. Debian Code of Conduct has nothing against signing one's emails, inline or otherwise, while other things like HTML emails and spam are explicitly forbidden (yet they appear almost daily anyway). See http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
2. Some people consider the practice of signing their emails useful, as it provides some benefits to them.
3. Even if one doesn't agree with such a practice, it's pretty harmless comparing to some other uses or abuses of the list.
4. If one still feels strongly that signed emails should not be used on this list, one may want to suggest such a change to the Debian Code of Conduct. I doubt it would pass though.
HTH
Reply to: