From: Marshall Votta Area: Public Key Encryption To: prz 3 Jan 95 05:31:56 Subject: Re: January meeting with Zimmermann's prosecutorUpdReq pr> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- pr> Version: 2.7 I love being intrigued. What's this? -eOf 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christopher Baker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Scott Mills 5 Jan 95 18:49:18 Subject: Re: January meeting with Zimmermann's prosecutorUpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 04 Jan 95, Scott Mills was quoted as saying: SM> Do you get a good sig on this? I'm getting a bad sig warning and SM> was wondering if it got mangled after you crossposted or before. i didn't check the sig since i verified it via Netmail. TTFN. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP 2.6.2 is LEGAL in Zone 1! So USE it! [grin] iQCVAwUBLwyFgssQPBL4miT5AQEPFwP9FTsjdSgMzy1N5X+u/z1CTgCDK7Xzt9tg FlyTfgfH20lBXbuFnFzzLVYJ9hJuBjNckscDFYDUp9aPs1vWCAj3HG+ZwgNfmJpX lAA57gIJ0IqazDecK2V25pBNMklJZCbCe2vAcDxCsoWauLddn4A2UvmRObOrsIaG 0cHiTwN3a8A= =7mHp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: jason carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Brian Giroux 4 Jan 95 20:44:32 Subject: REVOKE.BAT UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Brian Giroux wrote in a message to Jason Carr: JC>Maybe we should write a little .bat for the newbies to use until they >get more comfy with PGP? BG> Where were you a few weeks ago ;) Well, I was waffling. :) I was trying to reach a tenable position on how easy one should make it to use PGP. This is what I mean: there has to be a certain amount of =procedural= security in use or no crypto in the world will save you. I've seen full-on encrypted NetMail arrive with an identical plaintxt msg following right behind it. That means that someone's procedure was sloppy... that person (and the recipient!) would be better off if the sender had no PGP at all. He may have been tempted to include info he wouldn't have otherwise. Am I making sense on this? Letting newbies learn "the hard way" tends to weed out those users who might have sloppy habits. Don't get me wrong: I =really= believe in teaching and helping. I think those who have a little experience need to "let down the ladder" for newer guys. BUT... this particular application is different. Maybe. See? I told you I was waffling. Debating. Whatever. jason ... My life may be strange, but at least it's not boring. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: PGP_ECHO: CypherEcho to the gods... iQCVAwUBLwt67EjhGzlN9lCZAQFPKwP8CYH1JE5+b3sn6D8GSTGNM0uu4mUnQHeT Qi7e5CNMzVwR6ZnbhuQpFUtjA99f5k3+BX0strZFHwzjQWNC2/aYxGg57nmXAwnL SfEXmWHoO7qi9QCVhCDG/ixXiKr+CgAiV7zBmKfNXX4B40uk2+g0mKXaqRjYRZG1 OQLneTY6SiQ= =HOED -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ... Key fingerprint = 60 97 B2 AE 7D 90 11 2F 05 1C 35 98 E9 B9 83 61 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jerome Greene Area: Public Key Encryption To: Richard Dale 5 Jan 95 12:01:26 Subject: Re: 2047-bit keys UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- * Reply to msg originally in Public Key Drop Echo 02 Jan 95 18:22:11 Richard Dale wrote to All: RD> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- RD> -----END PGP MESSAGE----- RD> I generated a 2047-bit key the other night, but not on my original RD> Maybe not. Everyone should be able to decrypt it if I have done RD> it right. There are a lot of users in the echos, who did you encrypt it to? -=Jerome Greene=- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLwwbSnF52VfebiBFAQETxwQAsMru4ppcLrVHGhtQKPTS4E4I8riB6+d5 5zjj4EcZh47Js3SBNhWQiMUXTVUJrYokbAtCwHUdZn4Qfr+s8uXNZ5Bod/2SwWnU Ki+fFLiQdrzD2B45yFbr+t6r8+Zqg3GyTsOzw5VuoUxB0NsI5JRpXCH5BbJFUJwO jj2BNT+Zvuw= =OD/f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- **EZ-PGP v1.07 ... Blame Saint Andreas - it's all his fault. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718