full-disclosure - a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1068652018.2209.1.camel@localhost>
From: ebowser at i-trap.net (Eric Bowser)
Subject: a PGP signed mail? Has to be spam!

The filtering service I sell considers PG signatures to be a plus, and
is less likely to get a SPAM hit.


On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 21:22, onedo@....net wrote:
> Hi everyone
> 
> I had to notice something today that really disturbed me. A friend of 
> mine(working for a very big company) complained, that she doesn't get any 
> mails from me anymore. It turned out, that apparently my mails went straight 
> into the spam filter, as I signed everyone of them. When I sent unsigned 
> mails, she got them. What do we learn? Crypto is bad m'kay?
> But for real, does that mean that we won't be able to sign any mails anymore 
> soon, due to the spam problem(and stupid admins)?
> 'EGovernment' is the big word everywhere nowadays. The electronic signature is 
> mentioned as a way to ensure the credidibility of sender and receiver. Now 
> what?
> Guys(and girls), the situation sucks. What do you think? And, most important 
> of all, do you see any way to fight this behaviour? Because honestly, I 
> don't. 
> Greets
> 
> $me
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
-- 
Eric J. Bowser 
330.658.9858 direct 
330.658.0123 fax 

i-TRAP Internet Security Services 
888-658-TRAP toll-free 
330.658.1040 local 
www.i-trap.net