[plug] Was bun fight about "bad" words.

[Paul Wilson]

Mark Dixon wrote :
> I have no interest in arguments about which words are "bad" words and
which ones are "good" words
> (which seems to be how this particular thread started).
>
> However, Paul posited: "The point about the Net, as most of us know quite
well, is that there is no
> proof of provenance for email anyway."
>
> There may not be "proof of provenance for email", but it is possible to
provide fairly convincing
> evidence.  For example:  I am Mark Dixon.  The digital signature attached
to this e-mail attests to
> that and links my name to my e-mail.  The certificate has been notarised
by four people in a "web of
> trust" who met me in person and validated my personal identity documents
to give that notarisation
> convincing validity.

I understand that, and agree. With one caveat however. The digital signature
demonstrates that it was *your computer* which originated the message, not
you. In most cases there's not much difference (maybe none at all), but it
*is* important. If I went to a party at your place, I could concievably send
emails from your machine which would be digitally signed in the same way
that those written by you would be. It's the weakness not so much of digital
signatures, but of the assumption that the signature proves your presence.
It doesn't.  Of course, your comment about convincing evidence is still
completely true.

The Hooker