From: Alan Pugh Area: Public Key Encryption To: ron pritchett 24 Sep 94 08:17:28 Subject: Key Change? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Wes Perkhiser was saying something about Key Change? WP> In a message of , Ron Pritchett (1:376/74@fidonet.org) WP> writes: RP>I just added a new User ID to my trusty old key & was WP> wondering RP>it RP>that would cause problems if someone happened to encode something RP>on my "old" public key.... WP> No problem at all. Your new User ID was just tacked on to the "old" WP> public key anyway. PGP can't even tell which User ID the sender WP> picked for encryption. wes is correct. one way to clarify this a littl might be this... pgp doesn't really care what your 'name' is. it uses the key id, which in my case is 4fa2e1 as seen below with the -kvv switch. Type bits/keyID Date User ID pub 1248/4FA2E1 1994/05/13 Alan M. Pugh <0003701548@mcimail.com> sig 751CC1 Benjamin T. Moore, Jr. <1:231/110> sig D17C47 Al Thompson <1:231/110> sig 4FA2E1 Alan M. Pugh <0003701548@mcimail.com> note that the key ids are hexidecimal numbers. if one is using version 2.6+, the hex number is a little bigger (8 numbers rather than 6 i believe) you could call your userid anything you want, as long as the people you converse with know which key id to use, it will work. you can also use the key id as an absolute address when you encrypt mail to multiple people. for instance, i have a 'mailing' list that i occasionally send messages to. the following is similar to the operative line in the batch file i use for this. pgp -se %1 0x4FA2E1 0x751CC1 0xD17C47 note that this is a lot shorter than it would be if i used the full names above. hope this helps. amp <0003701548@mcimail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCxAgUBLoQm2NQ9obngT6LhAQECmQTdHK2+x1T8GVTZn7fM/JKv9C+rU88+V6X1 SX5z88ex6XExGHljR+jxhNm4vTRzMTMYjsWDAmXds2Pump4OaXVb0f0uGL7P7n9x 3Pf6bfUbf4S150njUk7eVXEu3IPNI/0Peqvh6greRU/rqKcjdDTe41XP6HyAEShz 5nHAkAITuplJX56T9isYmxC7zOq2CTN4+FzNdCZkDNEPaXn4 =U07j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ~~~ PGPBLUE 2.5 ... Redundant: Air bag in a politician's car. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tim Devore Area: Public Key Encryption To: Christopher Baker 28 Sep 94 01:48:02 Subject: Who's This Ashworth? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message of 24 Sep 94 Christopher Baker wrote to John Nieder: JN>> One problem in the initial dust-up was that the original person JN>> who had solicited PGPed mail from my friend was on a non-PGP node - JN>> according to Ashworth - but I am not sure about terminology here; is JN>> a"node" the individual BBS, or the next level up - the first JN>> grouping of local BBSs? CB> in FidoNet, a Node is the lowest level of the organization. a Node is a Slight correction in FidoNet a POINT is the lowest level serving off a NODE. Tim Devore -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: Don't know the contents? Don't claim responcibility for it! iQCVAwUBLoj1VWH5di5VidgVAQGCrAQAhS3OuCyb1dTQ9ulw0ZWyIisiAWVMZryk PerbiS9xMdnoMcCU5RTNIyK2pRaBYOpnORgBSJPeKVnUrH5WxP1Wl3fJCVQoqP0T cRV/qlwIh4/iRORii/bECRyKyojF9yOtSRrK4ly1uWm04UAXFKzI7C9G1hrnGvkq kjmDHhi8iWs= =974E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Richard Walker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Wes Landaker 28 Sep 94 08:22:40 Subject: why run a non message bbs UpdReq On the PGP vs fido distributors topic, the moderator has terminated the thread. I'd appreciate it if you didn't take that as carte blanch to spin the issue towards something other than what I was debating, which was strictly that no one has a RIGHT to send encrypted netmail through a distribution system that has explicitly stated that it does not consent to carry such traffic. That said, the non pgp vs fido distributors topics: RW>> No message areas what so ever. Zilch. Nadda. Zero. WL> How fun. =) Its not a "fun" board. There are hundreds of "fun" boards in this area. Yet another single line, "fun" board would hardly add anything useful to the area. On the other hand if you are looking to buy a new deer rifle and can't decide between a Ruger #1 or a Remington 700 style rifle, then the resources available on my system are the absolute *best* in the nation among public dial-up bbs'. Or perhaps you'd like to review a few dozen unpaid, unsolicited reviews of different expedition tents so that you can avoid wasting $500 on a tent that won't suit your purposes; though at this point, my backcountry database is rather skimpy compared with the firearms database (50+meg). WL> I have absolutely NO desire to research out software like that; I'm sure WL> it could be found, though, as there are PLENTY of other GT Power/Binkley WL> boards out there. :) Take a survey. Most of them use my software! . Actually, for some reason unfathomable to me, most of the GT sysops prefer to run frontdoor instead of binkley; but hey, if they want to pay for inferior software, who am I to stop them, but despite using frontdoor, most of these also use my mail munching software. As to why I would want to run an "entire network" on my system that has no echos open to typical users: 1.) some close personal friends of mine *do* have access to the echos. I wouldn't hesitate to put my life in any of their hands. 2.) f'req, it is much cheaper for someone from Australia to f'req the latest gt mail muncher from my system than it is for them to log on and download it. And yes, my software is being used in Australia, don't ask me why. The history is actually kind of funny though on that particular account... Yours truly Richard Walker 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Rob Buckman Area: Public Key Encryption To: Joe Noel 28 Sep 94 19:08:00 Subject: PGP Signatures UpdReq On 22 Sep 94 16:37 A.D. (not C.E.), Joe Noel said JN> What brought this up is that our net recently had a couple people JN> start sending netmail with PGP thru me. I bounced them, had a vote JN> and the net as a whole decided not to allow encrypted messages in our JN> net. NOW they are claiming that a signature is not an encrypted JN> message. From what I can see, encryption is encryption whether it be JN> a message or a signature. You're going on the assumption that if you can't read it with a normal ASCII viewer, then it must be encrypted, yes? You're wondering how you can be sure that what is in an encrypted signature is really a signature and not a message? The only way for me to convince you that those are really signatures is to encourage you to set aside some time and learn/experiment/run PGP. You'll have to convince yourself. Rob NEC 366 ... Optimism is a valuable asset, but not worth as much as collateral. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christopher Baker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Carl Hudkins 28 Sep 94 20:09:16 Subject: Re: Oops! UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 26 Sep 94, Carl Hudkins was quoted as saying: CH> carl Boca Chica, Florida carl.hudkins@lunatic.com CH> RIME ->1282 PGP: 2D1E1E39 Fido: 1:124/2113; 1:135/808 just curious about your multiple Origin personality. are you pointing out of two different Nets? summer and winter homes? TDY bases? [grin] TTFN. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.61 Comment: PGP 2.6.1 is LEGAL in Zone 1! So USE it! [grin] iQCVAwUBLooFsMsQPBL4miT5AQE4pAP/dt7JlUOBjsY8vRnP6iaZcNxOu93NngAF 0rkQz+KMAqZGJukxmPWMovnqxqSF+6CJNuMQ+C51bnIor/Q3b+MARjDG71Mtb7sJ G9jxH4yvc/5fwfgVHnAhq0U/olTjgDTVr9hAjRAbWS9sUg1ww5Jwg3DHq7Y7VVVX ZKKSQ6OtQP0= =1MJy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718