IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: pgp signing in van

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 09 September 2013 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E8911E81EB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 05:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h339hYNDy7Sp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1510C11E81D6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 05:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83E91414CF; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 06:46:16 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <522DC214.6010107@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 06:41:56 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
Subject: Re: pgp signing in van
References: <m2zjrq22wp.wl%randy@psg.com> <2309.1378487864@sandelman.ca> <522A5A45.7020208@isi.edu> <CA2A6416-7168-480A-8CE1-FB1EB6290C77@nominum.com> <522A71A5.6030808@gmail.com> <6DE840CA-2F3D-4AE5-B86A-90B39E07A35F@nominum.com> <CAPv4CP_ySqyEa57jUocVxX6M6DYef=DDdoB+XwmDMt5F9eGn1A@mail.gmail.com> <18992.1378676025@sandelman.ca>, <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077527BC7A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F124082240607516@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F124082240607516@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 12:44:28 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9/8/13 10:28 PM, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> There is no upside.
> 
> By signing your mail you lose plausible deniability, remove legal
> doubt as to what you said...

Why do you think that cryptographic doubt = legal doubt? I've heard
that claim many times, but I've never heard an argument for it.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSLcIUAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pa5cP/3aAJ5E0GRuq2OZTniHCeVjL
2cYMAfJJnuXx/qlXnlE2sCK1w6cU1NF9nwxqN23tbs4fHBp9mEMc1ZdA0NhthCiV
zjmWur8xuPRDDuf2nCVbvvBkp/zLqksSMFpw5QS0q2SpGDNFqz1ip/4lnhuYjjdn
SwGGjPKVWHkKOnnGPOSxs0pZM+9UzhbZaHXbmY5H6EebUOhcQVqw+V+oS/TqWpSu
ZAo3e/GK8YpPkctp0XFxwED7o4gq2fPipUIhGAF0Dmpzh84EamE0ANr5NKRMIdEb
La1dzbkngxpPR5nQbNQ6+o3B3uY8p7PQMM7E4tujV/JC/XTrsRqGrkzNgYHHRlh1
04rMXPvBMR4chfjJMrfuYB84KuJg/l3ArRo0n4/4N94RsRdbXeFbip4lYazl0FmR
wUPOXqcx8Ubexp7h1BJ8InHuBP07mR18aapLmZMZC3QVa/ZFAK/dYK3A2Gdqmq9u
sB/CB2KANMUy5PPr9eROG7nD+oYTNdCIH13trYC1v4tGW8YGYxFKjn1e/cJQOq0F
pEgMUHuAqU8+NXe0HyxdI8nn0CslCgm7YTCQtBnD173E5OsTInxIpEh1Ahr9FtS4
jTlaa8Gzkt5sKU46fhs0qxLfipru1ChiWMgPxFAawuBMFQKpQIdXIsfP9f0WeDjU
kWrP+LyHyd3ydi9Zoxco
=rJSY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email