On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 08:52:41AM -0600, jamey@??? wrote:
> > And then there's what Jamie said: By all being private, we make the
> > truly private stand out less. I haven't yet gotten to the point of
> > using privacy I don't need personally, as is obvious by this unsigned
> > email.
>
> > SteveT
>
> A friend of mine has a bit of a conspiracy theory going - asking why there
> is no e-mail program that defaults to at *least* signing messages
> cryptographically, if not using encryption as a default. He has a point:
> none of the major distros set up their e-mail clients to default to
> signing, or anything - why not?
>
> Sure, it's not the super-privacy-protective that heads or tails provides,
> but signing at least provides some confirmation that things haven't been
> changed along the way.

What default cryptographic identity would it use?

-- hendrik

> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng