From: James P.caldwell Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jim Grubs 3 Sep 94 17:38:00 Subject: Phil's Views UpdReq -=> Jim Grubs hollered to James P.caldwell about Phil's Views <=- > -=> Jim Grubs hollered to All about Phil's views <=- > Hey Phil! > Didn't a bunch of Feds just haul you butt in on criminal charges? > By spouting this statement are YOU caving into undue pressure by > government? JG> The charges are unproven and probably unproveable. Moreover, he has JG> nothing to gain by acting guilty. He's not acting guilty, he's acting like someone under duress. JG> If you have enough programming ability and mathematical expertise to JG> point out what parts of the source code prove him wrong, sing out. JG> Until then keep your ungrounded and unfounded opinions to yourself. Try the section of 2.6 where random numbers are generated. JG> Ignorant flammage serves no useful purpose except to alert the JG> discerning as to whose messages to skip over. I'll remember to skip over your posts. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Daryl Turner Area: Public Key Encryption To: John Schofield 2 Sep 94 23:10:28 Subject: Re: New to PGP UpdReq In a message of <31-Aug-94 16:13:52> John Schofield (1:102/903) wrote: JS> People who route messages through you have not read that log-in JS> message. They JS> do indeed have the illusion and expectation of privacy in their JS> messages. Thus, the ECPA does apply to you. If you are not willing to JS> route all messages that go through your system, you should not be JS> routing mail at all. Not true. You do NOT have to be willing to route for all, if you route for some, unless you are a NC/RC/ZC. It's my system, and *I* decide who can access it. JS> Yes, you do not have to give your users private e-mail--but my users JS> expect it, and they deserve it--and the ECPA is intended to see that JS> they get it. In fact, the ECPA was aimed at keeping people just like JS> you in check. How do you figure they deserve it? Do they pay for it? Well, no one here is going to pay, and the only person that will decide who deserves what is the one paying the bills. Me. If the laws here in Canada EVER start to say as a Bulletin Board operator that I am REQUIRED to do anything, then I will never open up a BBS. (This is a mail only node for me only right now.) PGP allows for signing of messages, and I agree completely with the authentication aspects of it, but as long as I can be held responsible for what is on this computer system, I have to be able to review what is on it. (And the police here have busted BBSes in the recent past, something I don't want to see happen to ME.) Daryl "Let those who worship evil's might..." -*- ASTG 0.7 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christopher Baker Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 2 Sep 94 13:11:16 Subject: PUBKEYS hatch UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- the OS/2 update for GenMsg was just hatched. GMSG2419.ZIP GenMsg editor/interface for OS/2. [123K] all PUBKEYS links please poll. TTFN. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a Comment: PGP 2.6 is LEGAL in Zone 1! So USE it! [grin] iQCVAwUBLmdcp8sQPBL4miT5AQG1HgP+JtF7Y/1tz415EYnQLMnP/HTN5dZ5Hz/8 f2L+cAL1KWfzNzWGYTYvw4fRJd1gJzCXbdmKpL1KDEuj2cvb91jX4pKPzVFkPx1i jRzdVBmbyuixf3LEtU2U8ZqA5Im2R41kQFzlIpO2UMkvDYqqL6Jpzxf0KtyXWcUN Iv2GX+hxuQs= =29ax -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christopher Baker Area: Public Key Encryption To: David Chessler 3 Sep 94 21:13:40 Subject: Re: Pres/vice pres UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 01 Sep 94, David Chessler was quoted as saying: DC> That removes your signatures, not other peoples. I meant to DC> remove unwanted signatures on a keyserver, or to issue a revokation pgp -krs userid [keyring] will remove any signature on any key in your keyring. invoke it on any key [even revoked ones] and it will prompt you one at a time for each signature it encounters on that key. DC> address changes), and all the keyserver does is add the new user DC> name. you want a new feature for keyservers then or you want them to manually remove signatures from certain keys using the existing pgp -krs userid [keyring] then? TTFN. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a Comment: PGP 2.6 is LEGAL in Zone 1! So USE it! [grin] iQCVAwUBLmkfN8sQPBL4miT5AQE5dgP/bK65lQ2xpj2+PbTILyhBRx97GpgllvJ5 5n1Fd+/kGCmzZEm/Scrc74r2pRiIkMVITdHOA+KVAPRuF7a5nXYJlakyEa72wVLV 2JqcMd/Ok8O2yHkrYAE/5eULoEPofrEDHtA1ggtruGkCF6p4ip49ZuBvS7bQoG/L 5Pk82xIyTQ8= =oAok -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: David Chessler 2 Sep 94 20:11:06 Subject: Pres/vice pres UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello David! 30 Aug 94 13:01, David Chessler wrote to Wes Landaker: DC> No, but there might be a procedure for *my* removing signatures DC> from keys, and keeping them off. Actually, revoking the login DC> name might do, since that's what is signed. You would lose other DC> signatures on that login name, of course. And I meant revoking a DC> logon name or user name or alias on your public key--that's DC> what's lacking, since many of us do have to change our user names DC> from time to time. Okay, that's something entirely different than I thought you meant. But there I _do_ agree with you. You should be able to _revoke_ (not only remove from your own system) not only signatures but erronious and outdated user id's. =) Maybe in a future version of PGP? =) WL> Clinton and Gore's keys signing Phil Zimmerman's. But if I saw WL> Phil Zimmerman signing a key that was Clinton's or Gores, WL> _THEN_ I'd be worried! =) DC> Why? They may also appreciate good software. And Clinton has DC> reasons for appreciating privacy. :-) I was refering to their "fake" keys. If the President of the United States wants to use PGP, I'm all with him, although I'd have his trust level set to about 0 for certifying other keys. ;) 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 iQCVAwUBLmf4M8lPrmStIlSlAQGtmgP9F0TDf+KV51WesEDQqm+Xd7KHnHPUp+ND 4Xha/jpDnNox28sQWF57BEMqsEw3CseICSlVar4l7AgGDUyvag/G/CcObgzdqOBx qrNqwOWUGI49B+3yTJkDFWgpiboDG7Wjtjd0rFQFphnOILY0OZibAVE3d1UCbXyz BnHbHAELD1s= =r5pC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Charles Miller 2 Sep 94 20:17:06 Subject: -- Help -- UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Charles! 30 Aug 94 09:52, Charles Miller wrote to SHAWN MCMAHON: SM@V> Bruce, since your system is quite capable of reading them, SM@V> upon what basis do you found your objection? CM> Probably Policy 4 which prohibits high ASCII. Really? Where? You'd better file a policy complaint against all the echos that have been using high-ASCII for years, then. :) 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 iQCVAwUBLmf5KslPrmStIlSlAQGbUQP+KDhsu0sF5d2BeMaILOllyClZxYuGGa28 HFjOuuSk9XJ44jGBai7fzbQ5gMEHtrUkhVY0gpWckDLdehkBFaiMPU6n8YMZn7y5 usCdtFfNi/ER6P61bOkJTmr0zhGBUjnDZXOxK+JzJwBh0fEla9+Gge6QUBwSnt22 5y5/6fR/HbA= =bSg7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tim Devore Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 2 Sep 94 23:01:16 Subject: -- Help -- UpdReq In a message of 31 Aug 94 Shawn McMahon wrote to me: SM> Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Tim Devore said this SM> to Shawn McMahon: TD>> BECAUSE I CAN'T!! Just because some can read/see them don't mean TD>> that ALL can and for one I've had to drop the BBS_Advertising TD>> Echo because they started to mess up my message databases. SM> Then I suggest you use software that isn't going to barf on ASCII codes SM> between 128 and 255, because even if every single person in Fidonet SM> stops using them (which is very doubtful, since over half of Fidonet SM> sysops live in countries where such characters are VERY common in SM> names, and even in the US they're not unheard-of) you're still going to SM> have problems when they creep in by accident. When I find software that can I might but until then...It's not the little things like names or even just a couple lines that mess them up it's when I get Full page graphics and the person or somewhere along the line that messes up what's intened to be shown/seen and that's what messes things up the most. I Have seen them before in other echo's but most if not all moderators have asked that they not be used..at least in the Echo's I get. SM> Your software is buggy, if it messes up your message databases on those SM> characters. Not everyone is using and IBM or Clone. I'm using an Amiga of which I haven't had much luck in finding software that deals with it to much and I'm not running a BBS, which would be able to deal with them properly. I can't even get the update to the software that I'm using now to work properly and it may have been corrected it that version.. I don't know yet and your the first person that I have ever seen put up such a fuss when asked to not use them also..so I'm ending by not even replying to any more posts of yours to me about the subject.... Tim Devore, Amiga Library-Op, Co-Sysop of Realm of Thought 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tim Devore Area: Public Key Encryption To: Richard Walker 2 Sep 94 23:46:32 Subject: New to PGP UpdReq In a message of 31 Aug 94 Richard Walker wrote to Tim Bradley: TB>> to changethings by being POLITE about it, and REASONABLY explain the TB>> positive uses of encryption & authentification -- and face facts: to TB>> the people in charge of both FIDO and the Law, encryption proponents TB>> are PREJUDGED as being "people with something to hide" And rantings TB>> with no basis in facts ENCOURAGE that belief. RW> Thanks for the clarifications. You are right about the presumption of RW> having something to hide; but I'm not sure its all that unjustified. I RW> do occassionally use encryption technology, and can see its usefulness RW> to protect proprietary software, but I have a hard time understanding RW> what possible good it could be in an echomail/netmail message sent over RW> fidonet, except for illicit purposes, like hacker-twits trading phone RW> card, credit card, and ATM information... Why do you send letters through Snail-Mail in an Envelope? Do you have something to HIDE? Are you Sending "hacker-twits" peoples phone card, credit card and ATM info. are you plotting against the Government? I don't know so I'll just send it back to you..unless it's on a postcard and I can see the contents even then I may not let it pass. That's what I'm comparing your statements to, sending letters by Snail-Mail to people. I know I shouldn't make the comparison like that because the govt. doesn't even make it, but it should and things would be looked at differently. Besides it's the only real comparison that can be made. IMHO Would you like it if you sent your wife/girlfriend a letter through Snail-Mail and the post office sent it back to you because you put it in an envelope because they didn't like your choise of envelopes? It's stupid to put encrypted stuff in an Echomail area but for "PRIVATE NETMAIL" I can see a drastic need for the Envelope of Encryption... Echomail is compared to sending a Postcard and everyone can read it and you know that they can/do..it just that in Echomail you get back more opinions about what you have said, and the people who read the Postcard don't send their opinion to you. Netmail is compared to sending a Letter via Snail-Mail. You know the contents and the Receiver knows the contents and anyone along the way won't be able to put in their comments to you because it's PRIVATE. But the only Envelope that's able to be used is Encryption to ensure that Privacy. Tim Devore, Amiga Library-Op, Co-Sysop of Realm of Thought ...Encyption of Netmail. The only way to put your letter in an Envelope... 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tim Devore Area: Public Key Encryption To: Tim Bradley 3 Sep 94 00:27:24 Subject: New to PGP UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message of 31 Aug 94 Tim Bradley wrote to Scott Mills: SM>> Just warning them doesn't supersede the law. An apartment complex can SM>> put up a warning by the mailboxes saying that they reserve the right to SM>> inspect any mail arriving in those boxes. That certainly doesn't make SM>> it legal. TB> Um, actually, it does on a BBS -- get it through your heads, folks: TB> EMAIL is *NOT* "Mail" in the eyes of the Law. PERIOD! The ECPA defines TB> SOME (*VERY* limited) rights to privacy in "Electronic Communications" TB> (Note that they do NOT call it "Electronic Mail") That's because they haven't dealt with the concept as a whole..The News Media is making Electronic Mail known to the public, but not giving defenition for those that don't know what it is by making the ever needed comparison to the Established Snail-Mail. People keep hearing about "THE INFORMATION SUPER HIGHWAY" and not grasping the concept because of the lack of Non-Computer literates understanding of what it is and how it's used. Every Net out there is part of it and those that provide the service to the users Need to Educate the New comers in how it works and have it explained that Echo mail is sent to Every BBS that has access to that Echo and Netmail is for "Private Mail" between the users and should expect to have reasonable privacy, unless Netmail is not offered. Any Local Echo that is Tagged as Private should be granted the same concideration, unless not provided. I could have a statement on the Opening Screen that would Say something like this to help inform them... This BBS only carries EchoMail areas that are not viewed as Private mail and no privacy in these areas is expected or given. The Local Echo's are not set for Private Mail and anyone who wishes to read the contents may do so and no privacy is expected or given. This BBS doesn't offer any Echo's for private use to the users.. Now if I were to offer private mail areas I could state this... This BBS carries EchoMail areas that are not viewed as Private mail and no privacy in these areas is expected or given. The Local Echo's are not Private Mail and anyone who wishes to read the contents may do so and no privacy is expected or given.. This BBS also Offers to the Local Users one Echo that is marked as Private and any and all reasonable Privacy is expected and given..Envelope Encryption can be used to help ensure your privacy... This BBS also offers to users a Private Mail Echo so they can send to others not using this BBS Private Mail and is marked as Private, any and all reasonable privacy can be expected and given..Envelope Encryption can be used to help ensure your privacy.. That way the users are fully informed before they use the BBS. I would also have a questionaire that must be filled out before I would give access to the Echo's so that I know if they understand the useage of the Non-Private Echo's and how they work and offer any help that I can to help them understand it more. If a person is familiar with how things work and have answered the questions and know how things work then no prob. access will be given. If a person has answered the questions and have answered incorrecty or doesn't give an answer to that/those/any question(s) will be flagged and will be given access to the local Echo's only and a note sent to me on which questions were missed and I can then send them a note of explenation. Time to start collecting Law References..:) Tim Devore, Amiga Library-Op, Co-Sysop of Realm of Thought -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: Don't know the contents? Don't claim responsibility for it! iQB1AwUBLmhBXSm3EZ/ddX6dAQGYoQL/aT9qLIZkfVJXLYtDJHnqEb2ibvG1k65N 2tFZ0KDLkvBRfBraK8E/p2KwL5291CqoZ60fe6nNw5xTYuXJpSJjapilueFWIUn4 Aw5r4rZJtEMqV9FUvf1yqskR8INI+2xO =SdzV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tim Bradley Area: Public Key Encryption To: Richard Walker 2 Sep 94 17:53:12 Subject: New to PGP UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message of 31 Aug 94 Richard Walker wrote to me: RW> Thanks for the clarifications. You are right about the presumption of RW> having something to hide; but I'm not sure its all that unjustified. I RW> do occassionally use encryption technology, and can see its usefulness RW> to protect proprietary software, but I have a hard time understanding RW> what possible good it could be in an echomail/netmail message sent over RW> fidonet, except for illicit purposes, like hacker-twits trading phone RW> card, credit card, and ATM information... I can think of SEVERAL uses without even trying -- one I've just run into this week: I'm playing a Play-by-EchoMail RPG, and my characcter is involved in some things that the OTHER character's aren't aware of yet. As someone upstream of my BBS in a Coordinators position doesn't like ANY routed Netmail, I CAN'T just keep such posts to netmail without an exorbitant LD phone bill. If encrypted traffic was allowed, I could post my moves to the GM without anyone else having ruining their surprise. Another point is the fact that I am writing a book -- there are several individuals on the RECFRP echo who I'd like to play-test some copyrighted material. If I had a "Reviewer" public key I could netmail to the people in question, I could post a segment once and get feedback from any reviewers without risking my copyright... Not to mention that while there may be no OBJECTIVE reason to hide personal materials in EMail, I really wouldn't like my love life read about by everyone along a netmail route . Later Daze, -- Tim Bradley -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: Would you send a letter without an envelope? iQBVAwUBLme6yjDp94PCS+V9AQH5FAIAt4WJtLUiPS+h4T0UKdpsUOd3h7wL1PgZ Wt6f0HFhpPtoB4ZQztfrcHttMnImHVbbItFnTJk+EmTG1tEY7VufUQ== =F2lO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tim Bradley Area: Public Key Encryption To: John Schofield 2 Sep 94 18:14:04 Subject: Keep Out second issue and *FREE* magazine offerUpdReq In a message of 31 Aug 94 John Schofield wrote to All: JS> If you do like Keep Out, send a check to the address below, and you JS> will receive six issues a year of timely information on electronic JS> privacy, anonymity, digital cash, steganography, and everything else JS> that can keep Big Brother's eyes off you. Hi John, speaking of which -- I don't suppose you've run across a steganography program for the Amiga at any point? Or perhaps well documented source code for an MS-DOS steg program (Preferably in Pascal)? Later Daze, -- Tim Bradley 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: jason carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn McMahon 3 Sep 94 12:04:58 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq Shawn McMahon wrote in a message to jason carr: SM> I was rereading the ECPA yesterday, and I found some SM> interesting bits about what happens if you "construct a SM> device" for the interception of mail. SM> It's sufficiently broad that I believe it would include SM> programming another device to intercept mail. SM> Thus, the fact that someone has automated the process is SM> specifically excluded as a defense under the ECPA. Oops. What does this mean for NetMail utils like NetMgr? I suppose it would be more serious if NetMgr scanned the body, but it only scans the header, AFAIK. SM> Not only that, but constructing the device itself is a SM> violation. SM> I was correct; Jim can get in trouble for SM> anybody else using his program, too. Not just as an SM> accessory, but as a specific ECPA violation. Lovely. Yep, pretty spooky. jason ... Peace Through Digital Harmony 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Rick Munday 3 Sep 94 22:26:36 Subject: Signature Test UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Rick! 01 Sep 94 07:22, Rick Munday wrote to Wes Landaker: RM> Will someone let me know how this comes out???? RM> Thanks Wes! Sure thing! =) 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 iQCVAwUBLmlosclPrmStIlSlAQGwvAP7Bdzr19yKlikINCAbOGTfiWiuewvl84G+ zTmqkFvfyDoXIAsbD3wVl+pWgdawoyuPaGjb393cHkYSkPf5gYIJdjKLQGTMY/TC Ezvtu/QCvp75SIJrYR6bsMm+ur9QTjn/O2Bov+Jgd/M5dL2VlyO/ZI0axCsFahCP 7YZFonP5icM= =sO3x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Bill Brown 3 Sep 94 22:28:20 Subject: Auto? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Bill! 01 Sep 94 16:21, Bill Brown wrote to Wes Landaker: WL> Yeah, it's nice when you don't have to do much work. =) For WL> most of my general signing and encrypting, I simply press a WL> button and type my password--I've got a ton of macros set up WL> on this message editor for running PGP. WL> PGP runs automatically on PKEY_DROP and I don't pay much WL> attention. BB> How do you manage that? (The auto-key-add part, not the BB> not-paying-attention part? ;) Since I use squishmail, it's simple enough to run "PGP PKEYDROP.SQD." =) Either that, or just press F12 on every message to "decrypt" it, although the first method is the easiest. =) If I had *.MSG bases, I'd do "FOR %1 IN (*.*) DO PGP %1." BB> As you can see from my PID, I'm running GoldEd too, although the BB> dos version. Not really a _big_ difference, they're basically the same. =) 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 iQCVAwUBLmlpzslPrmStIlSlAQEy5gP/fc5ZVEnO6WE7a9FYzKv/bQSgGWjh/+2X siLetfM2x0eKA44aclH0JqrA7FyHZoNQAoV9TnNF410B5H1mKBb04xWilsPma6M3 PTG2T1vlwCVvzBm5gGYTS3UE/iIBl/vSyj4O4qJxj/YRmVA7kOQDP6ORwmhLlmkV 7Oo4CFgjSc0= =gyKZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Rich Veraa Area: Public Key Encryption To: Tim Bradley 3 Sep 94 18:51:24 Subject: Re: New to PGP UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated:31 Aug 94, Tim Bradley was quoted as saying: TB> The ECPA defines SOME (*VERY* limited) rights to privacy in TB> "Electronic Communications" (Note that they do NOT call it TB> "Electronic Mail"), but those rights are predicated on the TB> message being placed in an area where there is "A reasonable TB> expectation of privacy" Would you mind quoting where in the law it says that? It seems to have been left out of my copy. Cheers, Rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6rv Comment: rveraa@newssun.med.miami.edu iQCVAwUBLmjTtJ80iJ+tnwVVAQHXkwP9G2LclnFZXVx+U1dktiPz51GmwJ9vA9j0 WcyRPnEY+s3kOm5V3VP8zTRRgyWVNxm0JSOPd/cly4T3uyNBHQ6skkMwfpJ3vwtF CsJgEPiFeUlur3qQjJitJFaEwlLA8TCvacpUav0i9qNW9/2lHW0mpjifUGVWbVAM g9FE5/otcvg= =Ajus -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: gk pace Area: Public Key Encryption To: Marshall Votta 4 Sep 94 21:24:40 Subject: Re: signing my own key. UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 04 Sep 94, you were quoted as saying: MV> * Original Message Posted via PKey_Drop MV> * Date: 03 Sep 94 12:07:24 MV> * From: Marshall Votta @ 1:323/140 MV> * To: All MV> * Forwarded by: gk pace @ 1:374/26 MV> * Message text was not edited! MV> Why should I sign my own key? I give up... Can't think of one good reson why anyone would sign their own key, except in the case of revoking/re-issuing. When revoking and reissuing, it makes sense to sign the new key with the old, and sign the revokation with the new. Not an overly important thing to do even then tho... -gk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a Comment: Fight to keep the Basic Human Right of Privacy! iQCVAwUBLmpzUo9JNB7uOPtBAQGJ3gQAlqQ+GgbadFMTV+tv/f2jAG/xAgqvTERy Ws+rv7cKgCx4+bHCHRbt4NkL7wlKCK+gyyyyex5xc2bSKS9sjtsp8lOkrzDUHEK5 MdlxFBME/3M3ya45+tEY1AHRzT2LssdIHb2akFx/LxDODZKLBeFZjWItAX/mcdpQ 6idVnLJL3p4= =Y3Bn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jim Cannell Area: Public Key Encryption To: Ryan Anderson 4 Sep 94 08:33:44 Subject: Re: Memory UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a msg on , Ryan Anderson of 1:120/379 writes: RA> -=> Quoting Jim Cannell to All <=- JC>> My keyring has gotten too big. PGP is now complaining about JC>> adding more keys. I get an out of memory message, and the JC>> keys do not get added. This happens somewhere around 5000 JC>> keys. RA> If your hardware will support it, run OS/2. I've been handling RA> everything that way, and things seem to work just fine. (Or RA> split things up. Have a small pubkey used for everday stuff, RA> and a large one (created with the OS/2 version) to handle RA> massive things in which you need all the keys. I was asking for advice on a method to allow the DOS version of PGP to access extended memory. I did not ask for advice on changing operating systems. 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 iQCVAwUBLmnq3SWTIMO3gis9AQHTtAP/bFEGUg8utWAFlrYkyTzYTpibFQTFLFDk rmk2QJ8+rq8Yq0fSZ7sUXzu9Bu2c8UWgnZKTMgmxDqDCtdoriNfeuQvjUQ0NmTBB FKH2gL9sRnmMVUKMpBinRyN1MvGv/BMdpBMUhaLzU3AkNqwcJ5BLLiL6fOBmFtbn /KnWLQmuqgo= =zIWr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jim Cannell Area: Public Key Encryption To: David Chessler 4 Sep 94 08:38:40 Subject: Pres/vice pres UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a msg on , David Chessler of 1:109/459 writes: DC> That removes your signatures, not other peoples. I meant to DC> remove unwanted signatures on a keyserver, or to issue a DC> revokation for one of your aliases on the ring. Right now, you DC> remove one of your user names on your ring, and put on a new one DC> (say, your address changes), and all the keyserver does is add DC> the new user name. This kind of thing seems to be a common misconception of the nature of public key crypto systems in general. Anything on a public key posted to a keyserver, PKEY_DROP, etc. is the same as publishing that key. Once something is published, and in general circulation, it cannot be unpublished. A signature on a key is there forever. You may be able to remove it on a limited number of keyrings, but you cannot remove it from all, and as long as it exists on even one keyring, it will continue to be distributed. 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 iQCVAwUBLmnq+CWTIMO3gis9AQGy2gP/ULu7IiZsi1MXSIMVBZgie5gjVgdtT71z 2gjJiKvwM43pdXQnwscbea5D/SF39opap/akuQpP5tmPM3pOnX7+S7dkmO6ceTTE oWsl1JeeiIHnDJVMIQzeLousw24qPKX1S3fDCxQxq475IY1WTsOaI8cK0WHB8QRe hi3ZkFAvXnQ= =N2KG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: mark lewis Area: Public Key Encryption To: David Chessler 4 Sep 94 09:30:26 Subject: Pres/vice pres UpdReq DC> That removes your signatures, not other peoples. I meant to DC> remove unwanted signatures on a keyserver, or to issue a i thought that there was a command to remove a signature from the servers and then you just send up the newly modified key. of course, for security, the removal command would have to be validated somehow... maybe via a signed message using the old key?? -=B-) DC> revokation for one of your aliases on the ring. Right now, DC> you remove one of your user names on your ring, and put on a DC> new one (say, your address changes), and all the keyserver DC> does is add the new user name. another option is to revoke that "old" key, send in the revocation certificate along with the new key with the correct information on it. yeah, i know... it's a bit'o work and kinda twisted... )\/(ark # Origin: (1:3634/12) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: mark lewis Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn K. Quinn 4 Sep 94 09:39:32 Subject: Take a look UpdReq SKQ> ... Encrypted netmail blocks: JUST SAY NO! SKQ> Oops, perhaps this could be misinterpeted: this meant as in SKQ> some idiot blocking an encrypted message... yep, i know i did when i first saw it... thought that you'd jump the tracks on us for a bit there -=B-) )\/(ark # Origin: (1:3634/12) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Bruce Bozarth Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn Mcmahon 4 Sep 94 15:05:00 Subject: -- Help -- UpdReq On 09-01-94, without care of life or limb, Shawn Mcmahon spake thusly to Bruce Bozarth regarding -- Help -- SM>BTW, if I were you, I wouldn't put up with a Windows program that SM>only allowed you to use half the selected font. Would rather put up with a Windows program that doesn't see non-information characters than ill-mannered posters who lack adequate potty training. ;) ... WinQwk 2.0b#0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718