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

[Christian]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:08:58PM +0800, Paul Wilson wrote:
> 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.

Minor (but important) corrction:  the digital signature shows that it
was extremely likely that your *key* signed the message (not the
computer).  But, as you're pointing out, it doesn't necesarily show that
you intended to sign the message.

-- 
DSA 0x2A0F80F3: 39F3 4E10 9BE9 E728 A9EE  029C D51D EE53 2A0F 80F3