GPG signatures

[Trevor Smith]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:31:00 -0500, Sean Estabrooks wrote:

>Most times the best it can do is assure you that the same sender is
>responsible for a set of messages.   The biggest benefit to the sender
>of signed messages is that it's hard to impersonate them.  However on a
>public help list the risk of this ever happening is so small that it makes
>the costs of the technology highly questionable.  The number of reasons to

This reminds me of a scenario I was embroiled in years ago when I
published an online OS/2 magazine. There was a person, who ran a whole
slew of public personalities, claiming they were all separate
individuals. At least it would have slowed him down some if he had to
create new PGP keys for every damn identity he created to back himself
up in online newsgroup arguments. :-)

IIRC I think he actually did impersonate some other people once or
twice. Of course, a few of us "debunkers" also made some malicious but
entirely humourous posts claiming to be him on a few occasions too. :-)



-- 
 Trevor Smith    |    trevor at haligonian.com