Stripped PGP sigs? (was Re: cvs help)

[warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)]

A agree -- stripping out application/pgp (or application/s-mime* )
attachments is a BAD Idea.  People who sign their mail should be
encouraged to continue to do so, and the list software should
not gratuitously remove security from email messages in the name
of whatever reason you've thought this was a good idea.

-derek

Derek Martin <blu at sophic.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 07:22:20AM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> > I have an attachment stripper that I installed on some of the lists. As
> > I was setting up a new list, I added it to a couple of the lists that
> > don't have it already. It also strips html messages. 
> 
> Well, I'd like to offer a suggestion:  Since PGP signatures are about
> the same size as the text which indicates that they have been
> stripped, are about as ugly, but the former actually provide some
> usefulness, whereas the latter does not, maybe it might be worthwhile
> to configure it to leave application/pgp attachments alone?
> 
> To be honest, we see so few attachments on this list, and those we do
> see are generally interesting/useful, I don't see the value in an
> attachment stripper.  Most such attachments are perl or shell scripts
> which do something useful, and I think it's worth NOT stripping those
> (as well as PGP sigs) from the list posts.  But that's just my
> opinion...
> 
> -- 
> Derek D. Martin
> http://www.pizzashack.org/
> GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available