Evil PGP sigs thread must die. was Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in my MUA OT

Wed Jul 10 19:01:00 UTC 2002

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Joseph T. Klein wrote:

> Regarding electronic signatures.
>
> The post was signed so you know for certain that I'm the knucklehead that
> accidentally started the OT thread with my stupid joke. Arrogant or
> not IMHO PGP sigs are a good business practice.

...when doing business.

> Signing post means only that you know with some certainty the bozo
> to hold responsible. I want to own up to my bozoesk, arrogant and
> stupid ramblings.

Ah, and that's where the arrogance comment came from. You assume that the
members of nanog care. I'm not trying to call you an arrogant person, and
I recognize that you're not being blatantly arrogant, it's more of a
passive assumption. The passive assumption is that your words are
important enough that somebody might want to verify them. So, does EVERY
email need to be pgp signed?

When was the last time somebody on this list bothered to check the
validity of a pgp signed message which they received via nanog?

I mean, if John Sidgmore posted to that from now on, Worldcom's official
pricing is $100/meg with a 3 meg commit, I wouldn't believe it for a
second unless it was signed and I verified it.

Andy

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills                              301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC                            www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access