Regarding electronic signatures. The post was signed so you know for certain that I'm the knucklehead that accidentally started the OT thread with my stupid joke. Arrogant or not IMHO PGP sigs are a good business practice. Signing post means only that you know with some certainty the bozo to hold responsible. I want to own up to my bozoesk, arrogant and stupid ramblings. Using PGP sigs has far more operational relevance than my silly post. Trusted relationships are an essential component to the operation of our industry. People have forged mail posted to this list in the past. I also put my phone number on a bunch of my past posts. I am exercising my right to be verifiably open and accountable for my stupid and arrogent actions. ... but not with this e-mail. --On Wednesday, 10 July 2002 12:49 -0400 Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, JC Dill wrote:
What part of "it is rude to expect all members of a large and diverse mailing list to accept and parse your particular attachment format" isn't perfectly clear?
Netiquette. It's been around a looooong time. You might try following it.
I have no problem reading the attachments (pine displays most attachments nicely), but personally I think the notion of pgp signing every mail you send is extremely arrogant.
Remind me again about why I should care about whether or not somebody was spoofing Joe Klein's email address, when this is the content:
<snip> -- Joseph T. Klein jtk@titania.net "Why do you continue to use that old Usenet style signature?" -- anon