Signature semantics (was Re: Anyone know what became of the Gaim-E Project?)

[Robert J. Hansen]

> which is fairly wide open to whatever meaning
> anyone wants to apply to it (that's a feature, not a bug).

Right, and this much doesn't bother me.  It's when people start  
ascribing meaning to bad signatures, or the nonexistence of  
signatures, that I begin to get frustrated.  A bad signature doesn't  
mean the message was tampered with -- the alteration could have been  
in the signature and not the message itself, just to name one  
possibility.

The flaw isn't in OpenPGP, but rather in the popular conception (or,  
in this case, misconception) of it.