>It could be pgp. We've found that the unwarranted use of pgp
>interferes with both Alsa and OSS. It interferes with other
>posters rights to use this ng without being blinded by pgp trash.

>cordially, as always,

>rm

Your constant rumbling wastse more bandwidth and time than do the pgp
signatures. People just don't get it, you hounding them only makes them
want to do it more. Just my 2 cents. Go ahead flame me.

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> >It could be pgp. We've found that the unwarranted use of pgp
> >interferes with both Alsa and OSS. It interferes with other
> >posters rights to use this ng without being blinded by pgp trash.

> >cordially, as always,

> >rm

> Your constant rumbling wastse more bandwidth and time than do the
> pgp signatures. People just don't get it, you hounding them only
> makes them want to do it more. Just my 2 cents. Go ahead flame
> me.

If more of you made your feelings known you wouldn't see the same
people complaining about it all the time. In any case, fewer
newbies will use pgp because they will understand that it is not
"cool" and it annoys the fuck out of people. If more people
complained the pgp trolls would either bugger off or stop using
pgp.

cordially, as always,

rm

On Tuesday 23 December 2003 1:35 am in alt.os.linux.slackware cdba@cdba.org
wrote:


> In any case, fewer
> newbies will use pgp because they will understand that it is not
> "cool" and it annoys the fuck out of people.

You are the only person complaining, if you do not like it go
somewhere else.
FOAD.

--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

Chris Newport <me@see-my-sig.invalid> wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 December 2003 1:35 am in alt.os.linux.slackware cdba@cdba.org
> wrote:

> > In any case, fewer newbies will use pgp because they will
> > understand that it is not "cool" and it annoys the fuck out of
> > people.

> You are the only person complaining,

Hardly.

> if you do not like it go somewhere else.

Well, no. The pgp crowd is clearly in the minority. I feel that
they can either put their pgp in their headers or in a mime
attachment, or they can go somewhere else.

It's all about respect.

cordially, as always,

rm

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:11:29 GMT, cdba@cdba.org wrote:

>Chris Newport <me@see-my-sig.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 23 December 2003 1:35 am in alt.os.linux.slackware cdba@cdba.org
>> wrote:
>
>> > In any case, fewer newbies will use pgp because they will
>> > understand that it is not "cool" and it annoys the fuck out of
>> > people.
>
>> You are the only person complaining,
>
>Hardly.
>
>> if you do not like it go somewhere else.
>
>Well, no. The pgp crowd is clearly in the minority. I feel that
>they can either put their pgp in their headers or in a mime
>attachment, or they can go somewhere else.
>
>It's all about respect.
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm

A PGP signature, by design, must wrap around the text it is signing.
So there is no reasonable way to put it in either the headers or an
attachment. But, unlike total encryption, which is frowned upon,
signatures are a good thing, and are actually required in some groups,
such as the news.admin areas. More people will begin to use them as
the pretenders and copy-cats become more prevalent. It's the easiest
way to validate the actual source of any message.

I suggest you get used to them. They will become more common in the
near future.

Bob McConnell
N2SPP

Bob McConnell <rmcconne@nospam.lightlink.com> wrote:

> A PGP signature, by design, must wrap around the text it is signing.
> So there is no reasonable way to put it in either the headers or an
> attachment.

That is simply not true. Pgp can be placed in a mime attachment.

> But, unlike total encryption, which is frowned upon, signatures
> are a good thing, and are actually required in some groups, such
> as the news.admin areas.

A good thing? And why don't _you_ use them then? Pgp actually
restricts the freedom of the individual who uses it and nobody who
actually thinks about it would use it unless he or she had in
choice.

> More people will begin to use them as the pretenders and
> copy-cats become more prevalent. It's the easiest way to validate
> the actual source of any message.

And why does the actual source of any message have to be validated?
In whose interest is it that the actual source of any message be
validated? It certainly is not in the interest of the person
posting the message.

> I suggest you get used to them. They will become more common in
> the near future.

Not likely. pgp has been around for a long time and is used by
far less than .1% of all posters.

cordially, as always,

rm

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:57:14 GMT, Bob McConnell <rmcconne@NOSPAM.lightlink.com>
wrote:
> A PGP signature, by design, must wrap around the text it is signing.
> So there is no reasonable way to put it in either the headers or an
> attachment.

You can put it in an attachment, but MIME encoding in newsgroups is
worse than HTML, in my opinion. See RFC2015 & RFC3156 for the full
details.

Mark posted something about using PGP signatures in headers, but I
haven't yet got around to reading about it. It might be Googleable.


--
Simon <simon@no-dns-yet.org.uk> **** GPG: F4A23C69
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
- Douglas Adams

Simon wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:57:14 GMT, Bob McConnell <rmcconne@NOSPAM.lightlink.com>
> wrote:
>
> You can put it in an attachment, but MIME encoding in newsgroups is
> worse than HTML, in my opinion. See RFC2015 & RFC3156 for the full
> details.
>
>

It can indeed be as a MIME attachment (I haven't read anything about
headers), the problem is newsreader support. It would simply be another
file attached to the message, with no purpose, or relevant result.
People are forced to choose between using gpg/pgp properly, not using it
at all, or to use the (dreaded by at least one person, to the level of
apparent neurosis) inline gpg/pgp.

The tech hasn't reached the point of making digital signing unbiquitous
(spelling, I know) and transparent in the background.

Jason Dumler

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 04:12:42 GMT, cdba@cdba.org wrote:

>Bob McConnell <rmcconne@nospam.lightlink.com> wrote:
>
>> A PGP signature, by design, must wrap around the text it is signing.
>> So there is no reasonable way to put it in either the headers or an
>> attachment.
>
>That is simply not true. Pgp can be placed in a mime attachment.

Then how would it sign the text? The header you quote in your
complaints has to be before the text it signs. Maybe the signature
itself can be in an attachment, but the body must have the start and
end markers.

>> But, unlike total encryption, which is frowned upon, signatures
>> are a good thing, and are actually required in some groups, such
>> as the news.admin areas.
>
>A good thing? And why don't _you_ use them then? Pgp actually
>restricts the freedom of the individual who uses it and nobody who
>actually thinks about it would use it unless he or she had in
>choice.

I don't post enough to be a target, yet. Restrict freedom? No, it just
removes some level of anonymity. In this group, that should not be an
issue.

>> More people will begin to use them as the pretenders and
>> copy-cats become more prevalent. It's the easiest way to validate
>> the actual source of any message.
>
>And why does the actual source of any message have to be validated?
>In whose interest is it that the actual source of any message be
>validated? It certainly is not in the interest of the person
>posting the message.

Yes it is. How do you know who posted this message, or that it is even
the same person that posted the previous one? How do I know that each
message I am responding to was posted by the same person? Headers can
be forged as well as any other part of the message. If the discussion
has any real value, the identity of the writers must also have value.
I do not want anyone posting messages pretending to be me, particulary
if they conflict with or attempt to repudiate my own statements. When
that happens, I will start using pgp, or an equivalent signature to
validate which messages are actually from me. That's not to say I will
register with Verisign to publicise my key, but I will provide a means
to validate which messages actually come from me so the forgeries can
be readily identified.

Now if this were in a warez or crack group, I would agree that the
originator would want to maintain total anonymity. But this is not one
of those groups. Here, as in any community, freedom without any
responsibility for your actions leads to anarchy and chaos. Those
other groups have already reached anarchy.

>> I suggest you get used to them. They will become more common in
>> the near future.
>
>Not likely. pgp has been around for a long time and is used by
>far less than .1% of all posters.
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm

I have been using BBS, news and email since 1983, and the level of
forged emails and SPAM with forged headers has only become significant
in the past two years. If this trend continues, pgp or something like
it will be absolutely necessary within two years.

But, I prefer to end this on a happier note.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Bob McConnell
N2SPP

Dnia Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:27:56 GMT
Bob McConnell <rmcconne@NOSPAM.lightlink.com> Napisal:

> >That is simply not true. Pgp can be placed in a mime attachment.
>
> Then how would it sign the text? The header you quote in your
> complaints has to be before the text it signs. Maybe the signature
> itself can be in an attachment, but the body must have the start and
> end markers.

Are You sure? Why don't think about it once again?
For some reason your mail program knows where headers section ends and
message body beggins. And all attachments are separated.
Is it magic? Lucky guess? ....
When You think about signing one attachment, but with sign in other one.
No trouble at all. No need for special marking begin and end because they
are already marked.
So more posts under that topic and You will be classified as troll.

pozdr.
Janek

--
4)A gdybym by³ kobiet± to móg³bym jeszcze dodaæ: BO TAK
Krzysiek C.