On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, "Bob Wyman" <bob(_at_)wyman(_dot_)us> wrote:
Gordon Peterson wrote:
But there is NO point in someone sending unannounced
attachments to someone who may not be prepared to
deal with them
Given that a signature is an attachment, are you suggesting that
I shouldn't be able to sign outgoing mail unless I have made previous
arrangments with all recipients who might receive such signed messages?
Yes, I think that there is NO point in sending "attachment signatures"
unsolicited, to people who maybe don't have software capable of dealing with
those attachments and authenticating them.
If such a rule were widely held, then the otherwise useful practice of
signing mail messages is likely to never be accepted!
It's not "useful" to recipients who have no way of dealing with those
attachments. And those are the folks who you're saying should find them,
unwanted, in their E-mail inboxes just because the sender has this geeky
feeling
that they're somehow "cool".
Gordon Peterson http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002 Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org/
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg