From: David Chessler Area: Public Key Encryption To: Christopher Baker 25 Aug 94 01:28:00 Subject: Re: pres/vice pres UpdReq On 08-21-94 (20:41), Christopher Baker, in a message to David Chessler about "RE: PRES/VICE PRES", stated the following: CB>DC> The next version of PGP will almost certainly have a -krs command, >DC> to remove or even revoke a signature. CB>PGP already has a -krs command to remove signatures from any userid. You're right, and it's been there for all of version 2's history. CB>maybe you were referring to a global remove command? [grin] Probably to the issuance of a revocation certificate of some sort to keep the signature from being put back on. ___ __ David.Chessler@f459.n109.z1.fidonet.org d_)--/d chessler@cap.gwu.edu chessler@trinitydc.edu * SLMR 2.1b * E-mail: ->132 1:109/459 david.chessler@neteast.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Scott Miller Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 26 Aug 94 23:12:00 Subject: PGP 2.6a authors UpdReq Observation time... Has anyone besides me noticed this: Rebellious Guerilla, the author of pgp 2.6a, has a key: Key ring: 'c:\pgp\pubring.pgp', looking for user ID "Rebel". Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1024/1CF2325D 1994/07/15 Rebellious Guerrilla 1 matching key found. Notice these things. Date: 7/15/94, Address: 1:374/26 So does GK Pace: Key ring: 'c:\pgp\pubring.pgp', looking for user ID "GK ". Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1024/EE38FB41 1994/05/14 GK Pace 1 matching keys found. Date: 7/15/94 Address: 1:374/26 Whoooa, kinda similar huh. Two possibilities 1* GK is RG 2* There is a really PGP familiar user on GK's board. I vote for 1. Is the cat out of the bag? Scott 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jim Cannell Area: Public Key Encryption To: Wes Landaker 27 Aug 94 14:55:30 Subject: SecureMail UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a msg on , Wes Landaker of 1:202/1822@fidonet.org writes: WL> Guy Martin @ 1:202/905, the SecureMail hub for my network, has WL> been marked as down in the nodelist for two weeks now. :( WL> Anybody know what's going on? Guy has been gone and out of SecureMail longer than that. We're looking for a replacement. WL> If not, as opposed to sending all my mail direct, should I simply WL> route through a hub in another net? As it is, I have to call WL> LD for _all_ my fidonet connections, but if I can send 20 WL> netmails via one SecureMail hub . . . you get the idea. ;) Contact the R10SMH, Radi Shourbaji, 1:143/110. You may be able to route through him. freq SECUREML here for the most up to date map. WL> (Anyway, I'd offer to hub 202 myself, but unfortunately, I'm long WL> distance from the rest of the net, and I don't think everyone WL> in net202 would appreciate having to call me long distance WL> every time they wanted to send a netmail--just because I have WL> to. =) Do you know anyone in Net 202 that might consider the position? Jim - International SecureMail Hub (ISMH) PGP key 1024/B7822B3D fingerprint = 0F F4 79 06 3B 33 99 D1 07 36 66 66 80 85 76 B3 Protect your right to privacy. Say no to GAK. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLl+3eiWTIMO3gis9AQFIBQQAsAXvrfPwVs3VA6Q1f+ar3OP4W8lbhwNj QVmjHLzmUmTJxjXkSqIgPF4r2t6BiyJyrxOI0KmL6DxTantPIAUDHAPMOr3uzrxZ 7WyAFsSMOJa8u4wGRFOMSbb2+2nztNMYkEoLWOgUbdkqGQTrAsf2MNrmNzu8qfOD cCtv8eiy8LM= =3VDP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Joe Lemere Area: Public Key Encryption To: Wes Landaker 26 Aug 94 15:42:34 Subject: Re: Keys UpdReq -=> Quoting Wes Landaker to Joe Lemere <=- WL> Hello Joe! JL> I believe I have a handle on PGP now, thanks to this echo. Below JL> you should see my sig . . . JL> Let me know if I bollixed up the workings somewhere. ;-) WL> I couldn't check your sig 'cause I don't have your key, but to the eye WL> it looks like you did all right. ;) Silly me .....Here's my key. Sorry about that! -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6a mQCNAi5Pzv8AAAEEAL7TqjacGT22MTsSkmV8rCC21mYZfaMWixBNy4Fr7kQrFw31 DxHEBb8FYJZ6IY8xqhYJcSH9a6oNwqpSN8I8PhYZ8tPXwGx4u8swL3/4bR27708A 5a8yvkk3QSe6Qb7VzJcwE+xg8ZCyf1KGK6QbWTCienGsRS+zZYKVyV6dLYxZAAUR tCBKb2UgTGVtZXJlIDwxOjM2NC83QGZpZG9uZXQub3JnPg== =E+Rz -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ~~~ PGPBLUE/2 2.5 ... MS-DOS: Mister Satan's Demonic Operating System 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Bruce Bozarth Area: Public Key Encryption To: Wes Landaker 27 Aug 94 16:21:00 Subject: -- Help -- UpdReq On 08-26-94, without care of life or limb, Wes Landaker spake thusly to Bruce Bozarth regarding -- Help -- WL>Perhaps because some computers don't interpret it correctly? Well, WL>then I'd like to ask for you to type EVERYTHING IN UPPERCASE FROM NOW WL>ON, PLEASE, BECAUSE MY OLD COMMODORE-64 (AND I DO HAVE A USER WITH A WL>C-64 WHO READS ECHOMAIL, SO I'M NOT BEING UNREALISTIC) TERMINAL DOESN'T WL>SUPPORT LOWER CASE, IT LOOKS LIKE FUNNY LITTLE SYMBOLS. You get the WL>idea. =) TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS NOT THE SAME AS SENDING CUTE LITTLE BOXES AND OTHER ASSORTED CHARACTERS. YOUR VERY EXAMPLE IS ONE OF THE PRIME REASONS TO AVOID USING EXTENDED ASCII CHARACTERS IN ANY AREAS EXCEPT THOSE WHICH ALLOW IT. :) YOU GOT THE PICTURE... ... WinQwk 2.0b#0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Bruce Bozarth Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jason Carr 27 Aug 94 17:15:00 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq On 08-26-94, without care of life or limb, Jason Carr spake thusly to Rich Veraa regarding Net 106 still at it? JC>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- JC> JC>Rich Veraa wrote in a message to Jason Carr: JC> JC>RV> Not even that. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" JC>RV> clause appears in the section of the law defining _oral JC>RV> communications_ (voice phone conversations). All JC>RV> _electronic_ (digital) communications ARE private by law. JC>RV> IOW "public" messages must be labeled as such and available JC>RV> with no password. Everything else is _defined_ as private. JC> JC>Is 'private' defined as unavailable w/out a password? :\ I'll unZIP JC>the copy of the ECPA that's hanging around here somewhere and check JC>it out. The definition you seek is communications not readily available to the public. You will not find the word "private" used in conjuction with the decription. This means that low access or reserved access areas fall under ECPA guidelines simply because your average public user does NOT have access. ... WinQwk 2.0b#0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Richard Walker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Wes Landaker 27 Aug 94 09:19:44 Subject: Re: New to PGP UpdReq RW>> Neither. I want a felony conviction of a fidonet operator. RW>> Nothing else is even remotely interesting. When you get one, let RW>> me know, until then, I will continue to be of the opinion, that a RW>> fidonet operator has no obligation to route a message with an RW>> encrypted signature or text. WL> How about we send mail to one of your users, you read it, and we use you WL> as an example? That would probably change your opinion. :) There is no such thing as private mail on this system. No one but me has any access to any private netmail type area. Also, all users on my system are specifically warned every time they log on that there is no such thing as a private message on this system. Besides, how would you prove that I read it?? Secondly, this is again an error. It is not necessary for an operator to read a message in order to kill messages with a PGP signature or encryption. System mailing software can do this as part of its normal mail handling function. Yours truly Richard Walker 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Richard Walker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Wes Landaker 27 Aug 94 09:23:34 Subject: Re: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq RW>> Now, I understand! You actually think some person has to read a RW>> message in order for a signed message to be detected and bounced? RW>> You are *dead* wrong. I could, in ten minutes write and compile a RW>> program that would stop all PGP signed/encrypted netmail and RW>> bounce it back to the sender. WL> If I send a message through the same system with the string modified to WL> say: WL> "---- HI! NICE DAY, ISN'T IT? ----" followed by PGP text, I can WL> guarantee you WL> that I would get it bounced back as well, along with the same rude flame WL> letter WL> telling me that I cannot route encrypted netmail through his system, and WL> if I want it private, to "send it direct." Again, how does that prove it was read by anyone????? System mailing software can do that without any action on the part of the operator. My software example was relatively simple for the sake of space, but it is not hard for a piece of software to detect and bounce the PGP encryption and signing data. Its just somewhat longer, probably about 20 lines or so. Whether the leading text is the same or not. Just because you get a signed message bounced back to you, does not prove that it was read by anyone unauthorized to do so. Yours truly Richard Walker 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Reed Darsey 26 Aug 94 08:19:58 Subject: PGP 2.6ui bugs? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Reed! 17 Aug 94 06:39, Reed Darsey wrote to All: RD> Specifically, "PGP -s" does not work the same in both of them. RD> (With idential CONFIG.TXT files.) RD> Is this a bug, or do some parameters need to be twiddled? What kind of problems are you having? If it's not clearsigning when it should be, not putting it in ascii armor, or not doing text conversions, that is because you are just telling it to SIGN--nothing else. :) If you want to do the kind of signatures that we do in this echo, you need to either do: PGP -sat +clearsig=on -u Or set clearsig=on, armor=on, textmode=on and your name in the config.txt file, and then just do: PGP -s :-) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4Yj8lPrmStIlSlAQHbzAP/SdRkJ7UBUdoOk5bSYXVykjba7IrMZdoK GE2bY54zK/feGl1qW1FSGBD+DAdJTmTm/3REKSfr580rgcFtaHKtmiDrQABCOqPM FEGVSUj+0hg6bWZ9kdqHE6KY+oEYP0RIuDrftyvvOK2pUHUC1j+pjSMn4PTJrb2P 0ZlgKidYppQ= =3HrN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Rick Munday 26 Aug 94 08:31:40 Subject: Signature Test UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Rick! 21 Aug 94 12:28, Rick Munday wrote to All: RM> Just testing the signature block. New version of Wildcat is RM> now running on our local BBS. Hope the -'s are all intact RM> this time! Will someone let me know how this comes RM> out???? TTFN & Thanks, Looks good here, to the eye. :) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4ZAslPrmStIlSlAQEjxQQAgAtiVsMgNse1gBkMff2ehTXF9gpTqyY6 7QHQ1NNOTAWdgxTEhQIwpbRTFdbX24cG/SvR2VMUNNP2t3p+IAZ1RRmDzH86ZaP6 nRCZRStjCLTI/S9BYSHn3IdKGP4uGZMMbf4nUdGP86myqDFnSROvOdv22NII7nxt r63nWW/fCDU= =YrD0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: David Chessler 26 Aug 94 08:34:56 Subject: Pres/vice pres UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello David! 19 Aug 94 19:35, David Chessler wrote to Ron Pritchett: DC> The next version of PGP will almost certainly have a -krs DC> command, to remove or even revoke a signature. You already can remove them with the -krs command! :) Revoking a signature might be nice, but it wouldn't help any in this case--whoever made the Clinton and Gore keys isn't going to go around revoking their signatures, now, are they? =) In any case, it doesn't MATTER if they sign keys or not--just as long as other people don't start signing theirs. For example, I really don't care if I see Clinton and Gore's keys signing Phil Zimmerman's. But if I saw Phil Zimmerman signing a key that was Clinton's or Gores, _THEN_ I'd be worried! =) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4aiMlPrmStIlSlAQEjcAP/cXTAlyBqWN2ybCFGdvaHyhJa4fCrwrQc pe62LITlsQTiw9Z3MY8gS2k1l86IhlH4uPJ/YlznhlaJ5JMh9YK/Y+uDPji+NZMl gUGirFX2lzL3R5oMxDFEFoa8tcSMa9v4a39hYsWwtLrDpwa3alopXKexi192jFOJ B71X1dn886I= =qg4a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Bruce Bozarth 26 Aug 94 08:38:50 Subject: -- Help -- UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Bruce! 21 Aug 94 14:12, Bruce Bozarth wrote to Kevin Lo: KL> Well, I haven't gotten any sort of complaints from anyone in any echos KL> that I use, so I assume that nobody cares. BB> Well, you're absolutely incorrect. No, actually, for _MOST_ echos, he's correct. There is absolutely no Fidonet prohibition on high-ASCII in echomail text, and there are only a few echos left that still have a high-ASCII restriction in their rules. BB> Please stop using extended characters in echomail. That's a big request! How are we supposed to manage in FRANCAIS, or other such echos when it is pertinant to use high-ASCII? I can see not using high-ASCII in echos where it is forbidden--but I don't see why it would be forbidden in the first place. Perhaps because some computers don't interpret it correctly? Well, then I'd like to ask for you to type EVERYTHING IN UPPERCASE FROM NOW ON, PLEASE, BECAUSE MY OLD COMMODORE-64 (AND I DO HAVE A USER WITH A C-64 WHO READS ECHOMAIL, SO I'M NOT BEING UNREALISTIC) TERMINAL DOESN'T SUPPORT LOWER CASE, IT LOOKS LIKE FUNNY LITTLE SYMBOLS. You get the idea. =) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4cZclPrmStIlSlAQHNbwP/QRzAiXEBRQo/xcH0XVPPzyxF0ycTEFdJ DbEWktsE74mVHOVIvbUTu6O3hCLYPrxVwbmHomOjvUJ870KfCM9htEmpL/qf82No No+mtSVlYyRG0XzGhSJP5Hjo0k2OzGXoHxNfTDO8DHsTANFX4NLmQ8/qrd1z4DpC OiJ6ZQFhNB8= =0qN0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Mike Lenker 26 Aug 94 08:47:38 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Mike! 21 Aug 94 22:20, Mike Lenker wrote to Jason Carr: ML> [Lance Rose, attorney, is the author of Syslaw, a shareware legal guide ML> for sysops, Syslaw . . . if it's shareware, I'm assuming it is a program? :) If so, (or even if not!) where might one obtain a copy? =) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4c6clPrmStIlSlAQFWkQQAg1mJw7G4MZ6Az2VVpPDnPXL+VlPjTcyI U1oEL4Jes4RDIS+7jn+7l5jgr2PuIxTuCIN1sjT459BAVthJOEMHNHwGuA0i5326 towjADhkSvuvxIM1o0SBtUgka+ebZsBXl5o8GttRFk/RxrjGG8e1PvZBTH0/eltz U/EHAj2b5kk= =bR/h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Richard Walker 26 Aug 94 08:50:18 Subject: New to PGP UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Richard! 22 Aug 94 16:31, Richard Walker wrote to Shawn McMahon: RW> Neither. I want a felony conviction of a fidonet operator. RW> Nothing else is even remotely interesting. When you get one, let RW> me know, until then, I will continue to be of the opinion, that a RW> fidonet operator has no obligation to route a message with an RW> encrypted signature or text. How about we send mail to one of your users, you read it, and we use you as an example? That would probably change your opinion. :) That attitude makes a good city planner--the kind that will absolutely not even _consider_ putting a stop sign up in a busy intersection until there has been at least two fatal accidents. (Afterall, the first one could have been a fluke, eh?) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4eFslPrmStIlSlAQG4ogP/RjL1zjrPeDw82kNUiCYJ7tsLwBpZJDdi vSetoHV347SJ1wkPqz9rJXZSAjGKz77Ucl1mIssKDtWl/eSLHwPUBKau1I48REz1 mTSZtNdYxowK1hTFDsplRqoRSw8eN+s1e4Ggc+LaygTelIhzCciVLpeQGLR5F3IE VVZg+PNLpzs= =Xrg4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Richard Walker 26 Aug 94 08:54:16 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Richard! 22 Aug 94 16:43, Richard Walker wrote to Scott Mills: RW> Now, I understand! You actually think some person has to read a RW> message in order for a signed message to be detected and bounced? RW> You are *dead* wrong. I could, in ten minutes write and compile a RW> program that would stop all PGP signed/encrypted netmail and RW> bounce it back to the sender. If I send a message through the same system with the string modified to say: "---- HI! NICE DAY, ISN'T IT? ----" followed by PGP text, I can guarantee you that I would get it bounced back as well, along with the same rude flame letter telling me that I cannot route encrypted netmail through his system, and if I want it private, to "send it direct." :) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4eqMlPrmStIlSlAQHdCwP+McZlbjTmIaceI2GOiJVCEqTdJf8Tzgj8 XjspjrynKh692VMCDzTtJste+psRBPHQqzMcf7sIBAoUojS6J8kkt9xJLKcghAyL HicxGeaXv7BWEe01dI7KPKJLnty/B9BVhVLvgtaO0WoeRnQj4+8CY0fNS2mfgjXr 56HYzb7ecwc= =kOGU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Tim Devore 26 Aug 94 08:56:36 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Tim! 21 Aug 94 18:14, Tim Devore wrote to Mike Riddle: TD> As it states in the FIDOPolicy4 the sysop can read all mail, TD> including net-mail but the contents of the net-mail are not TD> allowd to be disclosed without permission from the writter or TD> reciever of said net-mail. When the contents of any net-mail TD> message are disclosed without any permission then that is where TD> the law steps in. But I'm glad to hear that things are changing TD> towards net-mail privacy. They really need to update the Policy4 TD> and get it up to the times. Let's see. Policy4. The ECPA. Quiz: Which one is actual _law_, and which one is an organization's policy? For instance, if I made the following policy: "People who write mail to me, policy draft 4: "Section 2: People I don't like. "2.1 If I tell you I don't like somebody, you are intitled to do the following: "2.1.a Go through their garbage. "2.1.b Open their letters. "2.1.c Use their TV set when they are not home. "2.1.d Beat them up." Despite the rights that my policy has given to you, you still can't go beat up Mike Riddle just because I don't like him. My policy has NO legal authority or meaning--neither does Policy4. TD> I can read any un-encrypted net-mail that passes through my TD> sysops BBS of which I'm a co-sysop and I can read it when and how TD> I want but I can't disclose any of that info without permission TD> from the writter or reciever of it. BTW, I don't read any TD> net-mail unless it's for me because I only get my net-mail at my TD> point and don't go through the BBS to get it. If you read private mail "when and how you want," then you are a felon. As Ripley would tell you, "believe it, or not." :) TD> No problem. I need to know what's going on with this kinda stuff TD> anyway. I'm all for Public Key Encryption and will fight to the TD> bitter end to keep it around. I don't feel that Sysops should be TD> held liable for the contents of any net-mail/private message sent TD> to or through his/her system. But the software that deals with TD> the tossing/scanning of messages should be permantly set to have TD> the net-mail private flag ackowledged. If they haven't read it, HOW can they be liable! That's the point! :-) TD> I'm not going to get into another debate on this subject. I know TD> that the privacy laws are being changed to cover e-mail. They've been "changed," since the ECPA. It's just now that people are become _aware_. :) There are plenty of laws out there that the "average-joe" doesn't realize that he's breaking, or that it even exists! wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4hCclPrmStIlSlAQE19wQAlBKIW1Mijh1o4u2YmgY7+cxsNR6HlLvg 6wZJA/Ut3qiKLqLe9iXsaZt7SeydqoP/acDucjjO8dflsrMF3cLlhVSniev/5FHN ockyiihNreSt89S775kp5YzNJxtwghjs9joP1xd4AB36TRnCxkWCPaL4Pc1czuIF 1uzlANn1ZmQ= =lqRe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 26 Aug 94 09:09:44 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Shawn! 21 Aug 94 17:10, Shawn McMahon wrote to Wes Landaker: WL> Yes, in _some_ cases, it's okay for the sysop to review WL> netmail, but not in all cases covered by Policy4. Just WL> remember, Policy4 isn't above the law. :) SM> Additionally, Policy4 restricts you from revealing the contents SM> of netmail that isn't addressed to you, no matter what the SM> reason, unless the sender or addressee gives you permission. Yup. But even that doesn't really _need_ to be there, AFAIK. Unless I'm wrong, I think that is covered by the ECPA anyway. =) SM> This means that, if some NC wants to file a PC against you for SM> sending somebody in his net signed mail, he must violate P4 to SM> even file it. Heh. Never thought about that, but it is true. :) I really think it's time (much overdue, actually) for Policy5. Why don't I draft it? :) . . . (Answer: Because I'm not as familiar with the ECPA and computer-related laws as I'd like to be.) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4i48lPrmStIlSlAQErbwP/e0ehhevIsF09vYQOSJDMYuzaUOBAvtBf yfDwMVWfgf59gC5tSvMzqVgrW40SDsn+o1SvjtVRUbSh5ioUh+24SB9g4+o3sR9I +zwUtbF8oVI0lHPG/bV+Vw8j0K+8N86LTwzTS4ffdS9Ai4tfm3zX/rffWnEtSdKK rc4SWzUmbuY= =U23v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jim Grubs 26 Aug 94 09:21:04 Subject: Phil's views UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Jim! 21 Aug 94 11:06, Jim Grubs wrote to All: JG> Philip Zimmermann sent this out to cypherpunks, and asked me to JG> forward it to the rest of the world, as he has lousy news JG> service. Obviously, you can check the signature to make sure I JG> didn't just make it up. Apparently there's been a lot of weird JG> rumours flying about. -- Thanks for posting this. =) I'd pretty much figured out all of what he said here on my own beforehand, but it's nice to "hear" it from Phil's own "mouth." Found a couple of his statements a bit humourous, as well. I wonder if he meant 'em to sound that way. ;) JG> it is the old versions that are now crippled. I hope that PGP's JG> "legalization" does not undermine its popularity. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Heheh. :) I knew there was a reason I had a tough time liking 2.6 at first. ;) JG> users to upgrade to the new version before September. And I urge JG> you all to use the official 2.6 release, not anyone else's JG> incompatible bastardized mutant strain of PGP. Please pass the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Golly, Phil, all I did was check the source and recompile! (At least I don't distribute it.) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4lYslPrmStIlSlAQEKUQQAlhsum6Ghf/lbKevjYxKjeQGrOb0NXwwU gcuygnMmyp4U2xwwuSY3ljG7rZVRyr0zst4D4FlhYrR1veVQkSDa9epJBj+eb5T4 B4YHQETsF2AacOvdxzFCkBRJECG5aUgHOVCdtiOOhuWVqOJn4OulLuYcWG1ygTUW pygA+5ERvhU= =enI0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn K. Quinn 26 Aug 94 09:25:40 Subject: Gary Mirkin's public UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Shawn! 16 Aug 94 16:10, Shawn K. Quinn wrote to Shawn McMahon: SKQ> Doesn't it also make it possible for someone to forge a secret SKQ> key compromise, or am I missing something? I think you're missing something. :) A secret key compromise can only be made with the same secret key. (Oh, and sure, you can get the secret key from the public key. It's simple: just FACTOR it (manical laughter). ) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4mGslPrmStIlSlAQExZwP/U4px9+hnN+qEsaCXotg3ceBMaabJwyK8 DfMo6YKWbregAwrSD2P2CSbloHrebq4wxVJFLH53hw/9OKLiQdh4hX1snZZ77yGJ lMgvMukAoTucJ0yGZj/3FQrBHi7YLUZ8X7H6U5p40BTTn35veoZI5YdyecdlVU31 5dIi7m9aCy8= =XICM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Reed Darsey 26 Aug 94 09:28:24 Subject: signing our own keys UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Reed! 23 Aug 94 18:16, Reed Darsey wrote to All: RD> The example Gary gives is for two personal IDs. Suppose we have RD> three? Is what I've done below adequate? Should be. I sign all of my IDs, and I think that's what the FAQ you quoted recommends. :) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4mhMlPrmStIlSlAQHybgP/ef3nhAfVx9WNlWdeifgpyu2vBXqF25m3 3IuHqtSz9vKn8S7tmDMXkPmEYZTUrvo8nPT5zvRjTqxa+fDVyy9mJ91uSjN6Jg8e 8Kwy4zdijzTVPhb31mPUgGlVZ++MhXDM3S6Pj4lSQcInlpuEjh8qXe55YpEM2ymq FksSbt2NipU= =FMos -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Tim Devore 26 Aug 94 09:30:50 Subject: Key Key UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- WL> Hello Tim! TD> Hello back! Hello back, again! :) (Gotta love these GoldED templates. ;) 22 Aug 94 21:39, Tim Devore wrote to Wes Landaker: WL> PGP -KXA "Wes Landaker" key1 (makes key1.asc) WL> PGP -KXA "Tom Devore" key2 (makes key2.asc) WL> PGP -KA key1.asc myring (makes myring.pgp) WL> PGP -KA key2.asc myring (adds to myring.pgp) TD> Didn't try this one but I know that it will work. This is the way I usually do it when I want to add three or more, just so I don't get confused. ;) WL> PGP -KX "Wes Landaker" myring (makes myring.pgp) WL> PGP -KX "Tom Devore" key1 (makes key1.pgp) WL> PGP -KA key1 myring (adds to myring.pgp) WL> PGP -A myring (makes myring.asc) TD> Got this to work and Thanks for the info you explained it real TD> good. I know that if I can follow it without any troubles TD> somebody that's just starting out using PGP will be able to TD> follow it also. Glad it worked for ya. :) I tested it after I wrote that, just to make sure I knew what I was talking about. After fiddling with PGP a bunch in my spare time when I first getting it setup, I learned quite a few little commandline "tricks." ;) TD> Somebody should come up with a doc of different combinations of TD> commands and what the input and results would be the examples in TD> the docs that came with the program are not as informative as TD> your example(s) were. Well, if you'd give me some ideas of different "situations" that you'd like to see documented, I'd be happy to write them all out with explainations and commands. I just don't know what exactly isn't explained "enough" in the docs already. :) WL> If you want to post it. =) TD> If I had your Key I would. :) I haven't been taking any Keys from TD> the PKey_Drop echo yet until I get to know more people. You can FREQ my key from the address below, if you want it--or just wait until my next repost in PKEY_DROP, which might be a while, since I just put it back up there about two/three days ago. :-) TD> This is a test to see if the clearsig stuff works for me so TD> you won't be able to verify my sig until I post my key, TD> sorry still testing things out. WL> It _looks_ like it works, but I don't have your key so I WL> can't tell. :) TD> I sent a signed note to a friend of mine who I sent my key(s) in TD> a different message to see if I was getting it out right. Looks TD> like I am so I will have my Key in the PKey_Drop here shortly. I'll snatch it outta PKEY_DROP when I see it, and probably send you a netmail to verify it, if it doesn't already have sigs from people I trust yet. :) TD> I've seen some others that were as long but I was going to change TD> what it said anyways, I was also seeing how that worked and what TD> the limits were. It probably wouldn't make a difference, but I couldn't check it without your key. Looked kinda funny with the comment line wraping, though. :) TD> Now I know and I have a nice little set of TD> 'Aliases' setup for different commands and what they do, so if I TD> want to clearsign the message I would use 'pgpcs' (which is my TD> alias) and it does the rest. Yeah, that's a good idea. I do that with a lot of my programs that take weird flags. :) PGP I use mostly from inside GoldED, so I don't have to worry about it _too_ much. TD> Thank you very much for your help and good explinations. Anytime! They helped me out enough in this echo when I was getting started with PGP, ("duh? what's PGP? how can I sign this message without a pencil?") so the least I can do is help out when I see requests for help. wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl4qxslPrmStIlSlAQGfbgQAkJS3Hf3DCOo+c5KKNUVOjYa0oXkZJ4Ad j+VUGgHY6F3zGQf7hzvx8ZVZyokj+zH8LBKuNPIyb2ffeQLL8YLNl0I4rUdu/cNm kcFURr7p2eUpu0zgU/10GaeYWw0C53FnzxGSz1jJ0eAh7YGxXZi/iGeL7OHWl5fb u/rCyv8b/qo= =wKfx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tim Devore Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 27 Aug 94 03:54:20 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq In a message of 25 Aug 94 Shawn McMahon wrote to me: SM> Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Tim Devore said this SM> to Mike Riddle: TD>> As it states in the FIDOPolicy4 the sysop can read all mail, TD>> including net-mail but the contents of the net-mail are not TD>> allowd to be disclosed without permission from the writter or TD>> reciever of said net-mail. SM> Yes, Tim, that's what it states in Policy4. I'm slowly learning the new stuff, that is new to me, about the Tele-comms stuff. You've been an enthusiastic and informative help with this and I appreciate your help. SM> However, what we're trying to tell you is that Policy4 doesn't SM> supersede US law, which says that it is a felony for you to even READ SM> other people's mail, except where necessary for system maintenance. It SM> has been for 6 years now. Policy4 doesn't grant you any immunity to SM> federal law. I know that and wasn't aware, until you and others let me know that there have been laws pasted concerning things like this. I know that Pol4 doesn't grant immunity but as I stated before FIDO should update there POL4 and include stuff that current laws restrict and allow. TD>> I'm not going to get into another debate on this subject. I know TD>> that the privacy laws are being changed to cover e-mail. SM> Past tense, Tim. It was passed in 1986, and it's been upheld in court. Don't you just hate people like me that push things to the limit? I only pushed as far as I did to gain more info and be informed if someone asks me about the same kinda stuff later. Sorry I put you through a B***h of a time, it shouldn't have been pushed as far as I had done it but I'm informed now. OH BTW do you have the FED LAWS Sections/numbers or whatever they are called concerning what's been drilled into me? I would like to be able to go to the Library and get photo copies of them so I can pass them around to the BBS's around my area to inform them also. At least you didn't try to use the 2x4 on me. Tim Devore, Amiga Library-Op, Co-Sysop of Realm of Thought 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718