From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: jason carr 6 Aug 94 15:58:08 Subject: New to PGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, jason carr said this to Shawn McMahon: jc> I must disagree. Mailfraud can get one kicked out of Fido. It isn't mail, it's the 'snooze. If you don't make a dumb mistake, it can't be proven that you sent the thing. However, if you're squeamish, include a paragraph at the end disclaiming the whole thing. (This has been a demonstration. It was not written by Victim, but instead by Jason Carr.) etc. jc> Again, we disagree. (It's ok, I'll still buy ya a beer if I ever jc> meet ya :) I say ask the mod if it's ok. This gives the impression that signing is something special, for which one needs permission, and that it's reasonable to expect that it will not be allowed. On the contrary; echoes that don't allow it should be viewed as the weird ones. "What? I can't sign stuff? Why not? I don't understand." Sign first, stop only if asked. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLkOzC+bJC2KuabptAQFlNAQAuoe0WWGjoPhy9VdjCNxysGpFnZpYvTGD CN4jZxbGN5Mop6ATm9d/Nlr0Pjm4DCQOBLR0FBECzhG6DfwJgTjVTGHQh0bZR6vI y/TV3ln2q84+4BFBHoqgk2tLbUfIR3nQLG4jMkeetacj7ikdvW23RkIvvgr5tMP7 HI8I9Fhl9Ns= =Wdt+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: Phillip Runyan 6 Aug 94 16:06:32 Subject: Question or two * moved from PKEY_DROP by Sqed/32 0.96 @1:19/34 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Phillip Runyan said this to All: PR> Apparently it is ok to post one's public key but where is it ok PR> to send encrypted messages? In netmail. It's never appropriate to send encrypted messages in an echo, unless as part of a test in which the key with which to decrypt them is included. Why? Because we all pay to import these echoes, and it's not fair to make us pay to transport messages we can't read in an echo we expect to be public. PR> Is this the only area in which keys and signature blocks are ok? Keys are pretty much off-topic everywhere except here, for obvious reasons. There's no fidonet rule against them, however. Signature blocks aren't disallowed by fidonet rules, either. As for which echoes allow them and which don't, the best way to find out is simply sign anything you think needs to be signed. If the moderator doesn't like it, he'll tell you. PR> Once upon a time some sysops came unglued at the prospect of PR> having to transmit the extra bandwidth created by sig.'s. Many of those sysops use taglines and/or clever origin lines. Others allow file-lists in their echoes. The extra bandwidth for digital sigs is no more a burden than the extra blank space on a contract for putting your physical sig. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLkO0t+bJC2KuabptAQFFdAP/SpsXcl0el86OxnkSGmGCGgpbbc9i8HfS GyxSMeRlO22Ba++YlCMDPIYjc8ECivetM7iTRki1tVdZixGBuFBz7e5TYHPFhZW1 ytp74O1wnSOVd9Qmuc83J9UQj303xAPE7i32LQcP41ZWji/80m8fM4eXxdWUOnyv hFjjupGxfu4= =tGQ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 3 Aug 94 21:35:34 Subject: `Other` PGP-type programs Hello All! I've heard a bit recently about some other public-key programs that are used "frequently" on the Internet. And that's _all_ I know--I don't have any access to the Internet other than an occational gated UUCP email or ftp from a friend's account . . . is there anyone out there who would be kind enough to fill me in as to what they are called, what exactly they "do" (compared with PGP) and such? Thanks. :) Wes Team OS/2 Fidonet 1:202/1822, Internet wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org, CHNet 371:30/1 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jerry Boggs Area: Public Key Encryption To: John Cruz 5 Aug 94 21:55:36 Subject: My public key Thursday August 04 1994 20:41, John Cruz wrote to All: JC> Here is my public key. Any test messages to me would be appreciated. JC> Thanx! JC> JC> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----Version: 2.3 JC> mQCNAi0Z7KUAAAEEAKXjBnP4mab7v8Qqu58AcyB89vmad0/TsrRvqbyClU0whzEDkw7g0eYN6Qq JC> UnHOxiVe197LRiBHf86RAXCaj+CTgQt8W2CdV1156SpQM52wsjmlyJgqingWuVSkGhwuV/DpVO1 JC> AOSW567UvcQg3vfphC9VC8dsTn25jdzdFeZJGFAAURtC9Kb2huIENydXogPEpvaG4uQ3J1ekBmN JC> zAzMC5uMTUzLnoxLmZpZG9uZXQub3JnPrQsSi5DcnV6IDxKb2huLkNydXpAZjcwMzAubjE1My56 JC> MS5maWRvbmV0Lm9yZz60FUpvaG4gPEFnZ3Jlc3Nvcj4gQ3J1erQVSm9obiA8QWdncmVzc29yPiB JC> DcnV6=ZI/P-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Unfortunatly your key didn't come thru correctly. Jerry Boggs 1024/F7983445 Key fingerprint = D1 A1 41 39 04 66 AA 2E 8D 88 C5 26 06 46 38 CB Fidonet-1:265/5456|SYN NET-151:703/14|PODSnet-93:9800/5|Contnet 83:7031/0 ALTNET-370:3530/0|Medieval Net-180:234/9|Mysticnet-101:508/0 ...Famous Last Words #20: "Let's win this one and go home" * Custer --- GoldED 2.42.G0615+ 1626US3 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Reed Darsey Area: Public Key Encryption To: Mark Carter 6 Aug 94 19:09:56 Subject: Re: 2.3a vs 2.6 keys }Quoting Mark Carter to Reed Darsey on 03 Aug 94 01:59:44{ RD>> (I've seen messages suggesting that all the key revoking and RD>> reissuing is wasted effort.) MC> version is as good a time to issue a new key as any. A lot of people MC> simply wasted their own time because of assumed incompatibility, After posting my message, and also posting my 2.3a key re-extracted as a 2.6 key in the 'Distribution echo, I then saw the message where Jim Grubs posts the key server updates, which had 3 sets of the following: New userid: "Reed Darsey ". Will be added to the following key: So, my "2.3a" key is still "in" there, with a combination of my older and newer userids. Should I send a message directly to the keyserver to remove my key and then add my key having only my newer IDs? 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christopher Baker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Scott Miller 6 Aug 94 15:20:28 Subject: overquoting? [Was: My public key] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 05 Aug 94, Scott Miller was quoted as saying: SM> PID: RA 2.02 21982 SM> MSGID: 1:123/416 53e0d456 SM> REPLY: 1:153/255.0 2e41b4da SM> TID: FastEcho 1.41/g 7530 SM> * In a message originally to All, John Cruz said: SM> JC>Here is my public key. Any test messages to me would be SM> JC>appreciated. Thanx! SM> JC> SM> JC>-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----Version: 2.3 SM> SM> [over 200 blank lines excised] SM> SM> SM> JC>mQCNAi0Z7KUAAAEEAKXjBnP4mab7v8Qqu58AcyB89vmad0/TsrRvqbyClU0whz SM> JC>PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- and after all that, you didn't even reply? TTFN. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 Comment: PGP 2.6 is LEGAL in Zone 1! So USE it! [grin] iQCVAgUBLkPicMsQPBL4miT5AQFI5wQAm007/GqTaC3dOfpkqonS8FDuQ3UNj9vr 47XCxhZMS3P+V/E2sVSDmNb+AInpNhKwxqRgCXHd4p6X/zJmsHHPIX5C1+Pie0a4 IgQ8y/Pg3NP3bnRIVNpvOtzp0hI4Ein9AZfoY6GgHbevYFCCfzcES9spMsNYto2X If2UYzHvzOc= =PVz2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Mike Riddle Area: Public Key Encryption To: Mark Carter 6 Aug 94 03:33:06 Subject: 2.3a vs 2.6 keys In a message to Reed Darsey on Aug 03 94 at 01:59, Mark Carter wrote: RD>> (I've seen messages suggesting that all the key revoking RD>> and reissuing is wasted effort.) MC> It is. Some people like to occassionally issue a new key, MC> and a new version is as good a time to issue a new key as MC> any. A lot of people simply wasted their own time because MC> of assumed incompatibility, though. While the *keys* from earlier 2.x versions are compatible, the *signatures* are not if made with the default settings < 2.2 (if memory serves). Responding the wrong way to some PGP questions when faced with signature incompatibility has created disk errors on some machines with some 2.5/2.6 compilations. The majority of those revoking and reissuing did so to ensure the signatures on their keys would be compatible--and some did so because an older key is theoretically less secure than a new one. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jason Carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Steve T. Gove 5 Aug 94 17:32:10 Subject: Re: [request for clarification] -=> Quoting Steve T. Gove to jason carr <=- jc>Please advise me of any policies or procedures that 106 has regarding t jc>topic. STG> STG> Better send this to 106/449, /449 is the NEC. And also send to 106/0 STG> since he is the NC. The person at /1 is just another sysop, net106 STG> doesn't use the normal /XXX designations like the rest of fido STG> users... Thanks for the info! jason 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jess Williams Area: Public Key Encryption To: Wes Landaker 5 Aug 94 17:58:14 Subject: `OTHER` PGP-TYPE PROGRAMS There is a program called RIPEM which is another Public Key Type Program also based on the RSA algorithm. Instead of using IDEA for its conventional cipher it uses DES. I think it also has another option for the conventional routine. There are a number of Public Key encryption programs out there but those are the two all time favorites. Canada also has a program it likes to use called PKSCRYPT. Hope this helped. :) Jess Williams 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: Ian Hebert 7 Aug 94 14:51:00 Subject: New to PGP Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Ian Hebert said this to Christopher Baker: IH> Maybe this incident will get the current editor to wake up; IH> particularly if any legal action ensues. The current editors are very concerned about all the same issues we are, and I know that Sylvia Maxwell for one agrees that PGP sigs are one part of the solution. BTW, she has a copy of PGP, and is trying to learn about the software. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718