--===============1469283083==
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart13760413.Aq06kQpU7m";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--nextPart13760413.Aq06kQpU7m
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Friday 19 January 2007 08:46, Boyan Tabakov wrote:
> Below is the original message from Jean-Philippe, as well as my answer. T=
he
> message was encrypted for me, but seems as a post to everyone...
>
It's worth pointing out that if you post to the author and to the list, the=
=20
ecryption/signing goes to both.  If you really want to encrypt the message =
to=20
the author, the way around this is to send the message once to the person w=
ho=20
requires encryption, then Message > Send Again, changing the To line for th=
e=20
list address.

> > for testing purposes, I have signed/acknowledged Anne Wilson, Boyan
> > Tabakov & Ingo Klocker - out of intuition these people should be what
> > they are, and not as recommended through some Accurate Verification
> > Process - Hence, Anne & Ingo "turned Green" on my screen as well!
>
> Thanks for the trust, but that is not a good practice.=20

Agreed.  However, there is one not-so-small problem here.  Unless there has=
=20
been a recent change, it is impossible to send encrypted messages to someon=
e=20
who is not marked as trusted.  I'm not sure whether this 'trust' marking is=
=20
what Jean-Philippe meant when he said 'signed/acknowledged'.

> > The killall question: what's the use for me to have a key, if I am not
> > part of a "web of trust"?
>
> Not much use, if any at all.=20

One reason I started using it is that some spam/virus emails substitute=20
addresses from an addressbook instead of the real sender.  I had complaints=
=20
that I had sent a virus and had to explain how to look at headers and=20
identify the sender's IP and compare it with one known to be mine.  This=20
doesn't go down well with most computer users.  Signing it was one way of=20
giving them quick identification.  I do, however, get some complaints that =
I=20
send 'attachments' in messages, and the recipients system doesn't allow the=
m=20
to view the attachment.  I've just got used to explaining that=20
the 'attachment' is my signature, and if they wish to ignore it, they can.

> Find someone, a friend, colegue, etc, who's=20
> using PGP and ask him/her to sign your key. Then everything starts workin=
g:
> the friend of my friend is my friend...
>
Not as easy as it should be.  I tried to get a 'signing party' organised at=
 my=20
local LUG, but no-one was interested.  It's worth reminding, too, that you=
=20
are supposed to take some incontrovertible proof of identity, such as a=20
passport, when requesting signing.

Just a few thoughts to add to what Boyan has already said :-)

Anne

--nextPart13760413.Aq06kQpU7m
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBFsJTjkFAvMr/nNX8RAov2AJ0RXqSeSsUom3Q6HSHPXRPvx4MXSgCeJv0G
xfKZCMsWIZBD1GzOQskXMpc=
=WXfD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart13760413.Aq06kQpU7m--

--===============1469283083==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
KDE PIM users mailing list
kdepim-users@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-users

--===============1469283083==--