1994-11-30 - Authentication at toad.com: WTF?

Header Data

From: “L. Todd Masco” <cactus@hks.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 8a8bf1dad62d1280d569bf602efc08a39c2bb6934edd75e67faf5f87d615bf42
Message ID: <199411301638.PAA05151@seabsd.hks.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-11-30 20:43:02 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 12:43:02 PST

Raw message

From: "L. Todd Masco" <cactus@hks.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 12:43:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Authentication at toad.com: WTF?
Message-ID: <199411301638.PAA05151@seabsd.hks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Does the idea of having the list software check signatures strike
anybody else as a Bad Idea?  Signatures should be checked locally
by the recipient -- otherwise one might as well ask the sender to
include a statement stating whether or not a message is authentic
and should be believed.  I wouldn't want to see cypherpunks being
used to propogate this false security -- majordomo can no more be
trusted, as an external agent, than a message's sender.





Thread