From:    Christopher Baker                      Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      Bruce Davis                            21 May 95 23:44:16
Subject: dupes [Was: PGPWave]                   UpdReq 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In a message dated: 20 May 95, Bruce Davis stated:
BD>     Having used both, I LOVE PGPWave!
in an Echo, it is not necessary [or desirable] to send the same msg to 
different people as separate msgs. all participants can read the first 
one. the second one is redundant.
thanks.
TTFN.
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: SUPPORT the Phil Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund!
iQCVAwUBL8AIg8sQPBL4miT5AQFTPAP/RsD30/gdB2U5EE6gb9Y+Es+/5g7Tembb
nJIFWOfI87Lly8ASEFlFCRNG3F2mxLUHxpMgqs+GjSJdneKLnkgEJ4lZqE2fYA+v
I1+PglYLyVpC8fNSVqtxjaRRJuPlt0DEfwHBV0dJFIR38/Kg3RcI66RlatzSWKZP
3Aejf6UmDbc=
=0tkC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- GenMsg [0002] (cbak.rights@opus.global.org)
 # Origin: Rights On! for Privacy! It's a Right not a privilege! (1:374/14)


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201

From:    Christopher Baker                      Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      Shawn Mcmahon                          23 May 95 12:48:34
Subject: Re: flags [Was: Re: Pgp Stuff Available]UpdReq 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In a message dated: 21 May 95, Shawn Mcmahon stated:
CB> the X? flag merely indicates what level of file transfer protocols
CB> your software supports.
SM> No, it indicates what level of file transfer protocols your 
SM> *SYSTEM* supports.
same difference in this case. your software is your system. the 
configuration is irrelevant in this context.
SM> If you have the capability but have deactivated it, you aren't
SM> entitled to the flag, any more than a person with MNP capability
SM> deactivated is entitled to that flag.
that is correct. restricting certain files to certain groups is not 
'deactivated'. it is just edited. this is particularly true in this case 
since those groups are not entitled to freq these particular files 
anyway.
SM> If anybody with a copy of Binkleyterm 2.5x is automatically
SM> entitled to the XA flag whether they support FREQs or not, then
SM> they'd also be entitled to the CM flag whether they're up 24 hours
SM> or not.
you're arguing with yourself now. [grin] nobody has said otherwise.
SM> Bottom line is, what protocols your system *COULD* support isn't
SM> useful information; what protocols it *DOES* support is.
if you permit freqs, you are entitled to the freq protocol flag.
SM> So which do you think the nodelist flag shows?
it shows you permit freqs. it has no modifiers. this is not a perfect 
world. [grin]
SM> Anyway, I made my point and I'll shut up about it now, since it's
SM> off-topic.
okay.
TTFN.
Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: SUPPORT the Phil Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund!
iQCVAwUBL8IR1MsQPBL4miT5AQFglQP/abD33zwTBfqMhPodCbOQKxUVUmrd3q4e
qyRBj+lwf/jZFCoF/vXblxeSxpvXVHOkyTjhboLFDu0XFrW7prRCrGlepv4bI4eK
4KeeOdgG3PUINoeQsPgyWVm28fsDgTK5qdeIGvv9SQ2RRiCn1BtGvTwLo9jXgVMV
dUMq5d/3pFE=
=MU68
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- GenMsg [0002] (cbak.rights@opus.global.org)
 # Origin: Rights On! for Privacy! It's a Right not a privilege! (1:374/14)


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201

From:    jason carr                             Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      L P                                    23 May 95 17:31:42
Subject: Re: pgp Stuff Available                UpdReq 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
LP> files I have   available *except* for my PGP files, should
LP> this (as a matter of  FidoNet etiquette or rules) affect my
LP> nodelist flag?
OIC now.  Don't know what I was thinking...
LP>  My statement was:  This situation should not affect my
LP> listing  (as a matter of etiquette or otherwise), because
LP> neither
LP>  etiquette or rulemaking should involve the expectation that
LP> a  person break the law.
<nodding>  I follow, now.
LP> believe  that a cause is worthwhile, you should not shun
LP> doing what is  necessary to do good out of fear of the
LP> oppressor.
If it is necessary....
LP> If Phil Z. had  contemplated that he might be
LP> prosecuted for creating PGP, and  decided not to do it,
LP> there would be no "cause" here. My point was  that if I did
He could've released it anonymously, I guess.
jason
:-)=~
timEd-B9 -  Rap is to music what Hot Dogs are to Cuisine.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Cryptography and echomail aren't mutually exclusive.
iQCVAwUBL8KAEUjhGzlN9lCZAQFXggP+NnH9VRXddBJYF48apU9/QRDjKqWl90XB
/HvdIF8Q+NKoXS9uQ58HXB4NpCQ5hrYu7jUeHjdwSe2bjfsOVuQ+9ZmKnTCSwnsh
tCSnZXMOsjOZGNEYtCOQKUCIUAZG/6MngqN7Mc6IkW9HZVE0x2bkY6K8Yz7+JvPI
GV/qCSvVj4c=
=zq+Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>              In CypherSpace no one can read your screen.          <<
... Key fingerprint =  60 97 B2 AE 7D 90 11 2F  05 1C 35 98 E9 B9 83 61
--- CALLQ.BAT / PGP 2.6.2 / timEd 9
 # Origin: FREQ JASONKEY.ASC 214.650.0382 (1:124/3208)


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201