On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:53:20 -0700 Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <#secure method=pgp mode=sign> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Craig Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Do we have flames? Or just friendly args? > > Generally, not even arguments. Flames only come up when someone is > insisting to be totally clueless. My own idea is that PGP/GPG could save us all from spam and SMTP messages being clear text in one fell swoop. If everyone encrypted their email using GPG/PGP and refused to accept unencrypted email or mail not encrypted with their public key, spammers would have a heck of a time tracking all of those public keys then have to use a few CPU cycles to encrypt before sending, not to mention a few million keys to juggle. And surely the enduser PGP/GPG software could be made easy enough to use for the average Joe -- as in find the recipient's key, encrypt and send-- doh. Why do we need SPF or Madrid? For seamlessness? Heck with that. PGP/GPG would help to actually fix a problem rather than patch one. Craig ------------------------------------------------ Way out in left field with the solution. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
