__/ [Technomage Hawke] on Tuesday 08 November 2005 16:01 \__
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>> Normally, I would not bother signing my posts to UseNet newsgroups.
>> Someone proposed signing so that crackpots could not impersonate serious
>> posters. So I considered doing that.
>> Then another poster got mad and demanded that posters sign inline.
>> I happen to use enigmail with ThunderBird to read and post to these
>> newsgroups. I made a signed post to nj.test and it does the signing
>> But the mad poster also wanted X-header to tell key-id, etc., and I do not
>> know how to make enigmail do that.
>> How do I make enigmail accept an X-header. It is very easy in mutt.
Funny that you mention it because I got my ID and PGP URL in the X-header and
I have no clue how. I use Enigmail with Thunderbird 1.x and I have just
spent 10 minutes in vain trying to find the appropriate input fields. I am
also led to believe there is a design bug. I'm sure I had more options in
the past and Enigmail is far from intuitive. In fact, it's rather fragmented
> key signing is generally not a bad idea. however, having all those public
> keys available so that everyone knows who everyone else is, thats a little
> more complicated.....
...I think it's utterly unnecessary too... *hides sig*
> there is also the unfortunate consequence that not everyone that posts here
> can cryptographically sign their messages (insufficient client
> Still, if it were up to me, I'd rather sign than not (I am going to have to
> set that up with this client in any case)
> so? how we going to pass around pub keys? post in here or via a
> standardized keyserver?
I haven't seen cryptographically used for a genuine purpose in UseNet, yet.
Like a telephone number to E-commerce sites... it barely ever get used, but
still it is required.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "I think I think, therefore I think I am"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:05pm up 5 days 13:03, 4 users, load average: 0.20, 0.19, 0.18