From: Ryan Watson Area: Public Key Encryption To: Christopher Baker 28 Aug 94 01:43:58 Subject: Re: PGP for IBM. UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message of 25 Aug 94 Christopher Baker wrote to me: CB> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- CB> In a message dated: 24 Aug 94, Ryan Watson was quoted as saying: RW>> Can someone tell me where to obtain the newest PGP for the IBM? I have RW>> a point that needs a copy. CB> freq PGP for the MIT release 2.6 for DOS. CB> freq PGP26AB.ZIP for a recompile of MIT code that doesn't include the CB> various bugs of 2.6. CB> if you cannot file-request, call the BBS and download it at CB> 407-383-1372. Thanx, I'll hopefully freq it tonight. Yes, I can freq, I run a fidonet BBS. BTW, if you want I'd be glad to be a distribution point for anything dealing with PGP for atleast north-eastern Ohio. R. Matthew Watson (BVFD Unit #1821) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: PGP & Amiga, a forever winning combination! iQBVAgUBLmBADgmcRtNX1uOhAQGKWgH/d0A3IU6KjXtyAWGvHizGkyUMlexZPK3V IP4scMwjlRxScmjFFaIdh/IVVCzZBu+JoJXUTkPO/TxeoTzVedjcaw== =kbOU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- Spot 1.2d Unregistered # Origin: Far Point Station-Sysop: Realm of Thought (1:2440/180.1) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201 From: Richard Walker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Scott Mills 28 Aug 94 09:56:42 Subject: Re: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq RW>> stop all PGP signed/encrypted netmail and bounce it back to the RW>> sender. SM> Then you are still reading the contents. Maybe not all but some of the SM> message. If I set up my system to bounce all messages with the string SM> "unprotect" in a message I would still be reading and censoring the SM> traffic. If you are going to check all traffic you also take SM> responsibility for everything going through your system. Sorry, but I disagree, the privacy act refers to people reading and disclosing private information. It does not address how system software functions to deliver mail from one system to another. As long as the contents of the message are not disclosed to a human being, then there is no violation. The simple fact of ftsc style message transmission is that the mailing software *has* to read the entire message into memory, as there is no guarantee that significant ^A control messages are not contained at the end of the message data, or in the middle for that matter. Given that the message software has to act on the entire data of the message, an action which causes an encrypted message/signature to be returned to the sender would not violate any privacy requirements, as no *one* will have read the message. If you disagree, I am willing to discuss this from the perspective of the actual text of the law; so if you think you have something that contradicts what I said, *NOT* from some twit bureacrat, but from the text of the law itself; then you might get my attention. Yours truly Richard Walker --- QM v1.00 # Origin: Catholic Information Network FidoGate (1:106/960.0) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201 From: Carl Hudkins Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 28 Aug 94 16:18:48 Subject: Message mangling... UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello... My SysOp here has switched to PCBoard/Intermail and incoming Fido echoes are being re-wrapped, pretty much shooting all to Hell any chance of getting good signature checks here. This is a test to see if outgoing stuff is also being munched. Thanks, and sorry. :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: Would you send mail without an envelope? iQCVAgUBLmDn8r5BFpotHh45AQER5QP8D3jCwE/wUmP5a8CtZbWP/5Wnjlv7Wk0W bItyUv9BCVLCylM+dzm7QnAU4VuRWmpNSKcJHeisclJ0EjaxjDdzdxzQ7sIlpYGC bh6ykVlzrUFtnTrHWntKW88STQV55FkSI/VitWbjF2RItXbqDvNcuDfTVMTw4cnF SEYfeebuleQ= =bvxM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- * carl Boca Chica, Florida carl.hudkins@lunatic.com * * RIME ->1282 PGP: 2D1E1E39 Fido: 1:124/2113; 1:135/808 * === * RM 1.3 00377 * "All cats are gray in the dark." --Benjamin Franklin --- InterEcho 1.00/b15 # Origin: sparks!bbs, key west fl, U.S.A. (1:135/808) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201 From: Carl Hudkins Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn Mcmahon 28 Aug 94 16:18:48 Subject: Question or two UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I demand that SHAWN MCMAHON may or may not have said SM> BTW, it's safer for the sysop if he doesn't read private mail, because SM> it's a FELONY to do so in the US. How somebody thinks multiple routine SM> felony counts protect their legal liability is beyond me. I find it interesting that some people think having a program read the mail for them, such as doing a keyword search to censor/bounce mail, does not violate privacy and/or laws. ("Hey, if my software =just happens= to screw up somehow when PGP messages are passing through it, it's not my fault!") The point is that the mail (I'm referring to Netmail here, FYI) has been examined, with intent to refuse or "lose" it based on its content, and that's just plain =wrong!= Whether you do it or your robot does it while you're asleep, it's the same, at least to me. (Any lawyers care to chime in? :) I (and probably you, too, since you read this echo) have seen people basically defy us to get them convicted. I don't know whether to be happy or sad that I don't live within their jurisdiction -- I might just try it. Somebody needs to! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: Would you send mail without an envelope? iQCVAgUBLmDn+b5BFpotHh45AQHzowQAkZdWh/YPHNOt+mDSLdya2j5dtmjCCh6T UswfsdVo5knElpHMn0WWdCkbFIypsuCAka1JOs7C/lYUvhg1hK4I8aadH0ZWLrnn 0mZ4/uKdk7QC58FXC0JvHGYwrol8x6DDmmk8Nysp2IZMMpt04Bo2sH5WK/GmXdEQ ykhXQ9GOEgQ= =/Gpb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- * carl Boca Chica, Florida carl.hudkins@lunatic.com * * RIME ->1282 PGP: 2D1E1E39 Fido: 1:124/2113; 1:135/808 * === * RM 1.3 00377 * "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." --Gandhi --- InterEcho 1.00/b15 # Origin: sparks!bbs, key west fl, U.S.A. (1:135/808) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201 From: gk pace Area: Public Key Encryption To: Scott Mills 28 Aug 94 06:40:12 Subject: Re: Double-Key ENCRYPTION UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 26 Aug 94, you were quoted as saying: SM> Wednesday August 24 1994, Jason Carr writes to Scott Mills: SM> JC> Ahh, I see. Do you know if 2.6a fixes the choking on large keys? SM> Nope, still doesn't like them. I'm keeping 2.6ui around just to process SM> keys SM> if nothing else. FREQ PGP or PGPOS2 from here for a more recent (yet to be hatched) copy of PGP26a which will not choke on keys larger than 1K. -gk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a Comment: Privacy... One of the Basic Human Rights! iQCVAgUBLmBphY9JNB7uOPtBAQFfUgP9G4BHA/JRqJJDwz/BGyaqhljsdjLhexFP 2yIU7b5QrfV/C76roQf8TJK+FG3Xsii4MH0TGhSHx7bHR0AZ0qNjRequs1nh4JoC z+RNoupp8srE+iurrs8JrbyP46Zfsx33b5cFG2gMxK2twyr3DhBh865v3qkh0KAa pIBLdZl5mrM= =jd1n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- GenMsg/OS2 [0001] (gkp@f26.n374.z1.fidonet.org) # Origin: Privacy - Fight for it, or lose it forever! (1:374/26) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201 From: gk pace Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jim Cannell 28 Aug 94 06:45:24 Subject: Re: Memory UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 26 Aug 94, you were quoted as saying: JC> My keyring has gotten too big. PGP is now complaining about adding more JC> keys. I get an out of memory message, and the keys do not get added. JC> This happens somewhere around 5000 keys. JC> The only way around this that I see is to modify PGP to use extended JC> memory. 640k is just not enough. Has anyone modified PGP to do so? JC> This doesn't look like a very tough problem. It's just that I would JC> rather put my time into something else. JC> Thanks for any help. Trim your keyring down some by creating two (or more) public keyrings. When looking for a keyring, if it isn't found in the default keyring, PGP will ask you for the name of another to search thru. I keep those I use most in my default keyring, others in one called PUBKEYS.PGP... works fine this way, as long as you can remember the name of your other rings when using PGP. -gk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a Comment: Privacy... One of the Basic Human Rights! iQCVAgUBLmBqvY9JNB7uOPtBAQGaFQP+IPluXsAfphsGAczqzGgMvzZAF6HbeDNy Kfcc6ljOrSfLs7aRV92qjtzj6Hec/UPsjcVrpuk97BdMp32U6D/WzvylOwSH8ucl 2Ry6xb931hdu4nNngf8ru/kpNc90puLNCVmW/8mvuP6iCHwz9f9R9XABxJr27vRK +2C4ORmUTFI= =i8dq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- GenMsg/OS2 [0001] (gkp@f26.n374.z1.fidonet.org) # Origin: Privacy - Fight for it, or lose it forever! (1:374/26) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201 From: Matt Weese Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 28 Aug 94 12:35:00 Subject: Version UpdReq Please would someone tell me what the latest version of PGP is and where I can FREQ it? I've seen v2.6a and v2.7a and v2.6wjl and junk like that, so I'm a bit confused. Thanks. Matt Weese 1:170/459 PGP Key FREQ: "MWEESE" 1024/668D04E1 8D C8 B7 39 23 E0 C9 04 D3 CC 6B F5 5D F8 E1 BE ... QWK? I don't need no stinkin' QWK packet! --- FMail/386 0.98a # Origin: Sword +1 918 455 5806, 24000bps, Broken Arrow, OK, USA (1:170/459) * Origin: PODNet <-> FidoNet EchoGate! (93:9600/0.0) SEEN-BY: 107/946 147/1077 259/212 382/7 640/217 3611/19 9600/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694201