|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Evil PGP sigs thread must die. was Re: Stop it with putting youre-mail body in my MUA OT
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
|