PGP: learn it, use it, love it

Mon Jul 15 19:55:50 UTC 2002

On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 03:43:12PM -0400, bradley at dunn.org said:
> 
> Scott Francis wrote:
> > There are a great many good reasons to do so, and no good
> > reasons not to. Broken software and laziness don't count.
> 
> Sure there are. Non-repudiation is not always a good thing. Do you get every
> physical document you write notarized? If you are sued and email is

No, but I use an envelope and a signature on every piece of snail mail I send
that I author myself. (Not that there are that many nowadays.)

> submitted as evidence by the plaintiff would you rather the mail be signed
> or unsigned?

I stand behind what I write. If I am sued, I doubt that anything I wrote in
email would be to blame. In such a scenario (which, I might add, is entirely
hypothetical), the existence or lack of a PGP signature would hardly be the
problem. The actions that prompted the lawsuit would, and that is a whole
other kettle of fish altogether.

This is now so far off-topic I can't even _see_ the NANOG charter. Final
post by me. I did enjoy reading the various opinions submitted, but I hold
little hope that any arguments given, no matter their merit, will prompt any
change in the same.
-- 
-= Scott Francis || darkuncle (at) darkuncle (dot) net =-
  GPG key CB33CCA7 has been revoked; I am now 5537F527
        illum oportet crescere me autem minui
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20020715/d464c621/attachment.sig>