Signing Request

[J. Hellenthal]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:40 -0000, jhellenthal wrote:

>
> If you do not need to pgp/gpg sign email message to the lists please don't. I 
> know I probably don't have your pgp public key and a lot more users probably 
> do not either. Please use your best judgment.
>
> Thank you and best regards.
>
>

Alright If I must. Let me explain this email for the uncommon circumstances and 
big heads on the subject line.

This was just a request not an authoritative (must do) and certainly not spam as 
some have had a concern over.

If I do not have your public key in my keyring then I do not want it, do not 
need it and have no use for it at this time. This keeps my keyring small and 
manageable.

I do not feel the need to explain my process or setup on this matter as this 
email was intended as just a request as I don't see the need to sign a message to 
a mailing list when the information that is contained in more than half of the 
incoming email is not important enough to be signed.

For an example of the emails I am referring to (ports@):
 	"I am having problems with such/and/such/port/"

 	Why should it be signed ? I understand, shit happens....
 	but I don't need to verify that it happened to Random Joe.

Now on the other hand I firmly believe that a patch that is submitted by a 
maintainer or someone @FreeBSD.org should be signed. I am not referring to these 
emails at all in the last message and I apologize if that was unrecognizable to 
you.

There is a purpose for signing messages that contain information that someone 
needs to verify is actually from a trusted source but not all information that 
is transmitted needs to be verified. And that is all I was referring to when 
saying use your best judgment.

I will not be posting back on this subject as I never intended for this to be a 
off topic matter (just a request).

Best regards

-- 

J. Hellenthal (0x87337C16)
gmail.com!jhellenthal

:wq