This one time, at band camp, Russell Coker said: > On Friday 03 October 2008 19:02, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course, even more preferable would be if people designing standards > > would not expect users to change the ways they sign messages (l=) based > > on whether it's going to be sent to a list or not as the only way to > > accommodate common existing practices. > > I challenge you to design a way of signing messages that doesn't have this > issue.
PGP and GPG seem to do it right. Given that they've existed for ages, do it correctly, and actually have some measure of believability, I'm not sure why another standard was needed for signing things, much less why we should all change all our existing practices to accomodate a poorly thought scheme. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
