S/MIME vs. PGP as Protection from NNTP Post Soofing

"03:15:38 GMT" <asik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:3f87bbc6$0$2943$df066bcf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Neb Okla <n_okla@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> did this:
> > We've been through this before.
> >
> > If someone is stealing your name and it bothers you, post with an
S/MIME
> > digital signature.
> >
> > It takes under 15 minutes to sign up - and it's free.
>
> Then whoever is posting under his name can just add something that
> looks like a public key signature at the end of his or her posts, and
> the vast majority of the three people who read Plamer's spewage will
> be none the wiser - not that I'm complaining.

That's why I suggested S/MIME.

It's easy to add a PGP-looking signature to the end of ones posts.  Since
most people don't have PGP installed, nobody will really notice that the
signature is invalid.  Even if they do have PGP installed, they'll have to
actively click "Decrypt & Verify" to even *check* to see if the signature
is
valid.

If we assume that people who wish to read his posts are generally more
likely to use the default NNTP client, then it is highly probable that
they
will use Outlook Express or Netscape Communicator.

S/MIME comes pre-installed in many NNTP clients (Outlook Express and
Netscape Communicator), therefore the liklihood is fairly high that the
signature authentication will take place automatically.  If authentication
of the signature fails, the user is alerted in a VERY obvious way.

FUT: alt.security.pgp