On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:56:25PM -0700, Brendan Moran wrote:
>
> I realise that not everyone subscribes to [OT]:  But, I would have thought
> that there wouldn't be a problem when the list's admin said it was fine.
> PGP signatures are in plain text.  They take less space than some of the
> normal signatures I've seen, and they are generally out of the way, where
> you don't have to look at them.  I didn't think it was a problem.  No one
> who was on the [OT]: channel at the time said it was a problem.
>
> I still don't see the real difference between having a PGP signature and a
> conventional signature.  I see some far larger things to be concerned about
> if you want to go correcting people's list behaviour.  For instance, the
> lack of trimming on many replies.
>
As far as I can see they are totally different. A conventional signature gives
some info about titles/phone numbers etc and a PGP signature provides a method
of authenticating the sender of a message. It's debatable how well PGP does
this outside of closed trust frameworks, in any case I don't see why a post to
the piclist should require non-repudiatable authentication of the sender.

Simon.
---

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body