Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-11 Thread Terence
This is an interesting thread for me. I can see (I think!) the various points that have been made, but as it is, I feel, it's mostly trivial. If I write to this list, or others, or friends, or colleagues, why do I need to identify myself? Or require someone to find my public key to read or confirm

Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-11 Thread Jon Dowland
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:36:14PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > And why do we need this? We could notarized emails + use or computer > readable ID cards, anyway, this in addition won't make mailing list > mails more true or less true. There's more untruth for notarized papers > than for non-notariz

Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-10 Thread Ralf Mardorf
The Signature from someone else: "Confidence is what you have before you understand a problem" - Woody Allen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/133667150

Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-10 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 17:11 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:17:17PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > Regarding to security. Assumed somebody always sign the mails to a > > mailing list. Isn't it possible that somebody hacks the view of a > > mailing list archive? Make it look l

Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-10 Thread Jon Dowland
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 09:17:17PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Regarding to security. Assumed somebody always sign the mails to a > mailing list. Isn't it possible that somebody hacks the view of a > mailing list archive? Make it look like if a nice guy said odd things > for signed mails. He never

Re: [OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-10 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 14:56 +, Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2012 23:22:09 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 20:22 +, Camaleón wrote: > > >> What is what you understand by "dirty"? > >> > >> I can send the same spam, virus-inside or crap message with a signature >

Re: [OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 20:22 +, Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:33:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +, Camaleón wrote: > >> Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will > >> improve security when reading/posting e-mails >;-) >

Re: [OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Camaleón
On Wed, 09 May 2012 19:33:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +, Camaleón wrote: >> Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will >> improve security when reading/posting e-mails >;-) > > AFAIK a signed message can't become dirty. What is what

Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Ralf Mardorf
Regarding to security. Assumed somebody always sign the mails to a mailing list. Isn't it possible that somebody hacks the view of a mailing list archive? Make it look like if a nice guy said odd things for signed mails. He never did, the mails were not hacked, just the view of the web page is hack

Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Ralf Mardorf
"The signature is evidence that message comes from me. If I sign all my messages, I can say that I sign all my messages and possibly unsigned offensive content, which is spoofed to "come" from my address, isn't sent by me." You also could lie and anyway send unsigned mails. And why is it needed?

Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Mika Suomalainen
09.05.2012 21:09, Jon Dowland kirjoitti: > I didn't check beyond the other person: if they have sigs on their key, > then it's feasible Mika is joined to a/the web of trust. Rather than > try to manually construct such a path, I fed Mikka's key into pathfinder > web sites, but his key is not wide

Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Jon Dowland
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:32:12PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > When the subject was "gpg/pgp noise" Jon Dowland wrote: "I clearly > explained that his key was signed by another he owned, which in turn was > signed by *someone else entirely*." > > A chain of unsigned keys for one and the same pers

Re: [OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 17:26 +, Camaleón wrote: > Exactly. For instance, those who think that PGP signed messages will > improve security when reading/posting e-mails >;-) AFAIK a signed message can't become dirty. So it's secure that nobody add a word, removed a word or completely edited the

[OT] Re: Things we should know about PGP

2012-05-09 Thread Camaleón
On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:12 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > If this discussion can't be stopped, than perhaps we can make it a > useful thread, by not talking about how to behave or not to behave on a > mailing list, by not talking about if we won't signed emails or not. (...) > If you really need