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----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Nolan Lee Area: Public Key Encryption To: David Chessler 23 May 95 02:26:56 Subject: Re: encrypted messages UpdReq On May 17 20:45 95, David Chessler of 1:109/459 wrote: DC> Tightening? Imposing where none had been. And that's in DC> the soviet union: they didn't have operative and DC> applicable law, in a country that had previously licensed DC> typewriters. In addition to mimeograph and copy machines. ;-( later, Nolan 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: John Stephenson Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn Pringle 22 May 95 18:25:50 Subject: RSA UpdReq SP> Observe that you're quoted text is wrapped to 70 characters, by my SP> program. Interesting, but I already have routines to wrap text. But I don't because you can't predict how to properly wrap a line, and I like preserving the message 100%. SP> It would be fantastic if you integrated this into PGPBlue. It *would* be fantastic, considering I don't write PGPBlue! I write PGPWave, slight difference in name, large difference in product. :) SP> It's my own baby, so if you want it you can ask for it here SP> and I'll transmit the upgrade, even at 2400b 18k is nothing. My SP> system is up from 9:00pm - 7:00am. I'm a bit confused. If it just wraps text, then I'm not interested as I can do that easily enough as it stands. - John ... Oxymoron: Hard-wired. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Mark Bainter Area: Public Key Encryption To: Christopher Baker 21 May 95 16:50:00 Subject: SecureMail Host Routing system info UpdReq > The FidoNet (r) SecureMail System > 30 Mar 94 > Copyright (C) 1994, 1995 Jim Cannell > [Source: GK Pace, 1993; Christopher Baker, 1994] > E-Mail content. A list of current SMH Nodes is > contained in the file SECUREML.MAP which accompanies this document. > Applications may be made via direct Netmail to the ZSMH, RSMH, or > NSMH closest to your area. International applications may be sent > to the ISMH as listed in the map. Well, I did not get the map file. Perhaps you could list the file here or tell me where I could f'req it?? Thanks... )\/(ark 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 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----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 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. 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 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: David Chessler Area: Public Key Encryption To: Glen Todd 23 May 95 11:12:00 Subject: Encrypted messages UpdReq On 05-20-95 (16:45), Glen Todd, in a message to David Chessler about "ENCRYPTED MESSAGES", stated the following: GT>DC> An agency cannot, under the administrative procedures act, enforce >any rule >DC> or law, unless it has a public interface (appeals process, >administrative >DC> law judges, the whole schmere). GT>True, but irrelevant. The gummint has already more than adequately >proved >that it has no qualms about wriggling around it's own regulations. So, >what >you have is State being the _official_ administering agency, with the >officially non-existant NSA calling the shots from behind the curtain. Except it's not just NSA involved. Commerce and Defence get involved on a policy level. Treasury and the Federal Reserve are involved when it involves banking. And any direct or indirect involvement by NSA is subject to the ex parte rules. If it can be shown that NSA were involved "calling the shots from behind the curtain" on any matter, any judge will throw out the decision. That's the law. >(1:128/1330) -- ___ __ david.chessler@neteast.com d_)--/d chessler@capaccess.org chessler@trinitydc.edu * SLMR 2.1b * E-mail: ->132 1:109/459 david.chessler@neteast.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718