Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
On Sunday 14 August 2005 15:43, Ben Laurie wrote:
Signing messages weakens plausible deniability. It may imply some
standing that is not necessarily intended. These things can harm the
sender.
On the other hand: not signing weakens the receivers trust into the sender.
Just as an example: I can't be sure that your advise to not use signatures
comes from a knowledgable OpenPGP expert, it could as well come from a
spammer lobbying against the use of crypto because it harms his business
model.
True enough, but the argument should stand no matter who I am.
If you want to protect against spam using signatures there are other
ways to do it that don't involve signing the content.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff