| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
»Q« wrote: |
| 5 |
> Wolf Canis <wolf.canis@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> Would know a message reach the ML with my Name but no signature or a |
| 8 |
>> different signature, could one relatively be sure about the fact that |
| 9 |
>> this particular message is not from the original "Wolf Canis". |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> No, we'd have absolutely no way of telling whether or not it came from |
| 12 |
> the original "Wolf Canis". You could post using your usual signature, |
| 13 |
> telling us the other one wasn't from you, but we'd have nothing to go |
| 14 |
> on but your word. I think most of us /would/ take your word for it, |
| 15 |
> but I doubt the signatures make a difference in that. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That would mean that "Wolf Canis" is a bad boy and would have more |
| 19 |
than one signature, one for normal use and one or more for evil use. |
| 20 |
OK, if it's that what you mean, I understand it that way, then you |
| 21 |
are right. But I'm pretty sure that, if "Wolf Canis" comes with |
| 22 |
different signatures then it would be at least questionable and |
| 23 |
would probably lead to a ban, I think. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
W. Canis |
| 26 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 28 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkg+XMgACgkQKT9zBKF0twX1VwCeKc82++vshXFlOky3K0KEWVq1 |
| 31 |
Wd8AoII2bi7Ap7Za01PyetP+pMrCqYXM |
| 32 |
=OFkQ |
| 33 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives