From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 13:43:59 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Mandatory sig workaround
In-Reply-To: <199411301438.JAA19795@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>
Message-ID: <199411302242.OAA11728@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: Bob Snyder <snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>

   I don't sign/encrypt to
   mailing list, as many people get disgruntled by it, and can cause
   problems of it's own.

Now encryption I can see disgruntlement at, but a cleartext signature?

   How about just an annoyance responder that sends a piece of mail to
   people who post without signing/encrypting, telling them they should
   be encrypting, that it's the preferred method of doing things, and to
   do so in the future if possible?

I've convinced myself this is a good idea for my own personal mail, at
least.  As for the list server, some explanation and pointers are in
order, to be sure, though not with each message.  But "just" a
responder?  I don't think that induces a sufficient incentive.

   As a side note, if you want people to sign their notes, why aren't you
   doing so now?

For the same reason that Tim isn't--it's too difficult.

Now I've just recently set up a new email machine and I expect that
I'll be able to get signing set up on it before the end of the year.
I have plenty of irons in the fire already, and this isn't the top
priority.

   it would seem that signing
   your own messages would be a good way of starting things toward the
   direction you want to go.

It certainly would.  My priorities on this are to get myself set up
for signing.  Then I need to get a recognizer written, then to hack
vacation to use alternate database files, then to get my own personal
resource list compiled, then to set my personal nagware.  Only after
all that do I intend to alter the list.

Eric