[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FEDORA net etiquette



On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 14:39 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> 	I would also point out one other important reason.  Regressions.  I've
> personally helped trouble shoot several significant problems in MTA's
> and filtering systems (MailScanner) when problems have cropped up where
> my signature didn't verify.  Problems resolved down into corruptions in
> transports which then had to then be fixed.

I'm not claiming that PGP has no place in email messages. I'm
questioning the value of PGP signed messages in ML messages...

> 	As I stated in an earlier message, this has to do with traffic analysis
> as well as "preponderance of evidence" issues.  That's two good reasons
> which have been well discussed in various cryptography forums and
> amongst security professionals for years.  I remember having this debate
> in the PGP forums on USENET some 15 years ago.  If you don't agree with
> it (and many still don't) that fine.  I'm still signing and if someone
> can't handle that, it's their problem.

Preponderance of evidence? We are still talking about ML messages,
right? I doubt that BigG will be sending his next Halloween message to
Fedora-users ML...
As for the -rude- "can't handle that, it's their problem" part, I assume
that you'll silently accept the same behavior the next time someone
drops a 15K HTML message with containing a picture of his pet in his
signature. (Given that fact that your 8K message contains 1826 bytes of
actual text...)

There's an old Jewish saying that - roughly translated (to English) -
goes something like this:
"Do not do the things that you hate the most to your friends."

I'd suggest you keep it mind.

- Gilboa


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]