PGP signatures

[Ralph Cohen]

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:47:49 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:17:22 -0400, Ralph Cohen wrote:
>
>...
>...
>>Well let's see.  They could send you an email requesting verification
>>which you could respond to using your PGP key.  That might work!
>
>    No, because the original isn't signed.  If they make changes to the
>original they can still use my signed reply as verification of it.
>

Guess what!  You could send a PGP signed version of the original
message as confirmation of it's authenticity.  Personally, I never
confirm the accuracy of any message or document attributed to me
without including a copy of the original or at least quoting the
critical points.


>...
>>and/or b) you don't give a damn if other people are are forced to waste >bandwidth on a meaningless appendage to your email simply because you choose >not be be at all selective about how you apply it;
>
>    Why should I be concerned?  Waste bandwidth.  I don't think the ~210
>bytes that represents the PGP signature is bandwidth to be concerned over.
>

Great, then I guess you no longer object to the HTML stuff anymore?
Obviously, the PGP information included in everything you send to this
list is of little or no use to the bulk of the readers of this list,
which is probably the same situation for the HTML mail sent to this
list by other members.  (BTW, have you ever given any thought to the
number of cases of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome which are being aggravated by
the scrolling required to deal with the 16 additional lines that your
signature and PGP stuff add to each of your messages?)

>...
>>thisisameaninglessblockoftextappendedtotheendofthismessagebecausepmmailm
>>akesitsoeasytoaddpreformattdblocksoftexttoanymessageaspartofthesignature
>>andsinceitisnothtmlformattediknowthatnoonewillcomplainaboutitbeinginclud
>>edinthismessageorinfuturemessagesdespitetheobviouswasteofbandwidthitrepr
>>esentsbecausetheonlybandwidththatistruelywastedisinthemessagesyoudownloa
>>dnandnottheonesyouupload.
>
>    The difference is, here you're being an asshole as this block of text
>serves no purpose.  The PGP signature does serve a purpose.
>

Only a moron would label someone an "asshole" for creating such a
brilliant piece of parody.  In fact, I think I captured the essence of
your justification for inclusion of your PGP signature when I
wrote:

"theonlybandwidththatistruelywastedisinthemessagesyoudownloadandnottheon
esyouupload"

See, that block of text did serve a purpose!


Ralph (maybe it really is, and maybe it really isn't me) Cohen

rpcohen@neurotron,com