Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon () eiv com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:35:50 -0500
onedo () gmx net wrote:
The problem stays the same. The implication of my experience(and several of the list replies here) are: If you want your mails to be delivered, abandon crypto. I do not like that at all.
You shouldn't, because that removes authentication without guaranteeing delivery. It is therefore obviously the wrong thing to do.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!, (continued)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Ciro (Nov 11)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Nick FitzGerald (Nov 12)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Michael Gale (Nov 11)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Scott Taylor (Nov 11)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Michael Gale (Nov 11)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Daniel (Nov 11)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Michael Gale (Nov 11)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Steffen Kluge (Nov 11)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Michael Gale (Nov 11)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Chris Ruvolo (Nov 12)
- Re: PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! onedo (Nov 12)
- Re: PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Shawn McMahon (Nov 13)
- Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam! Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 12)