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

Re: [Full-Disclosure] PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!

To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:35:50 -0500

onedo@gmx.net wrote:

The problem stays the same. The implication of my experience(and several of the list replies here) are: If you want your mails to be delivered, abandon crypto. I do not like that at all.

You shouldn't, because that removes authentication without guaranteeing delivery. It is therefore obviously the wrong thing to do.

Attachment: pgp00062.pgp
Description: PGP signature

References:
- [Full-Disclosure] a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!
  - From: onedo@gmx.net
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!
  - From: Michael Gale <michael@bluesuperman.com>
- [Full-Disclosure] Re: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!
  - From: Chris Ruvolo <chris+fulldisc@ruvolo.net>
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!
  - From: onedo@gmx.net

Prev by Date: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] Frontpage Extensions Remote Command Execution
Next by Date: RE: [Full-Disclosure] SSH Exploit Request
Previous by thread: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!
Next by thread: RE: [Full-Disclosure] a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread