Justin Fielding wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Well, I have just had to start administering our mail server, and it
> has shown me what a big problem spam and worms are posing.  The way I
> see things, if I sign all of my messages, then people instantly know
> that this is from me, it is not spoofed and there is 0% chance that
> there is any kind of worm of virus included.  It requires me to
> provide my master password whenever sending an email, therefore worms
> can't just send out junk to every address in my contacts (including
> this list).  While I'm sure the chances are low, why even give them a
> chance?
>
> Justin,
>
> P.s. Does this type of signing mess up anyones client view?  It's
> messy, and to be honest it doesn't really verify that I am who I say
> (unlike digital certificates).  Still it's something.

You can see above what it looked like in MS Outlook Express on Windows 2000.
Still annoyingly messy, but I would probably read it some of the time.
Can't you just lose the silly signature and send plain text like most
everyone else?

On a different but somewhat related subject:  I was looking thru the
archives and noticed something strange.  For most posters, the comment field
of the FROM address was shown in a listing of messages.  This is usually the
person's plain text name.  However, on my postings it used the user name
portion of my email address even though a perfectly valid comment with my
name was supplied.  In other words, my posts are listed as "olin_piclist"
instead of "Olin Lathrop".

I can't see the difference in what I'm sending out compared to what others
are sending out that works correctly.  Here is the appropriate line from one
of my messages as I received it back from the list:

  From: olin_piclist at embedincdotcom (Olin Lathrop)

(I obfuscated the actual address a bit).  Here is an example of identical
syntax as best I can tell that shows up correctly in the archives:

  From: A.B.Pearce at rldotacdotuk (Alan B. Pearce)

(same obfuscation applied).  What's the differnce?  What is causing the
archives web server to interpret these differently?  I'm not complaining
since I can't see how this hurts me, but it's very curious and the answer
might be illuminating.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist