gep2(_at_)terabites(_dot_)com wrote:
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".
Excuse me, but there are many people who feel that promoting signed
email is one of the steps needed for solving the spam problem.
>>Especially<< for people sending unsolicited email. It has nothing to
do with the geek factor.
You may disagree with whether signed email would help solve the spam
problem. But if it does become accepted, then attachments will also
become the accepted practice.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg