1996-07-04 - Re: Lack of PGP signatures
Header Data
From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
To: Alan Olsen <alano@teleport.com>
Message Hash: 873ca8a8d08d004735a28c4fca669f2804277e8af57b02bcd8e1ce18ab63ff1b
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960703230954.124G-100000@smoke.suba.com>
Reply To: <2.2.32.19960703220436.00e93fe8@mail.teleport.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-04 08:25:07 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:25:07 +0800
Raw message
From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:25:07 +0800
To: Alan Olsen <alano@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Lack of PGP signatures
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960703220436.00e93fe8@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960703230954.124G-100000@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Alan Olsen wrote:
> I am wondering why there is not a signing option that ignores all
> non-printing characters. Might fix some of these problems... (Can anyone
> think of a reason this would be a "Bad Thing(tm)"?)
IANACE, but off the top of my head I'd say clear signing binaries.
Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com
Thread
Return to July 1996
- Return to “Alan Olsen <alano@teleport.com>”
- Return to “David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com>”
- Return to ““Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>”
Return to “snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>”
- 1996-07-04 (Thu, 4 Jul 1996 09:16:18 +0800) - Re: Lack of PGP signatures - Alan Olsen <alano@teleport.com>
- 1996-07-04 (Thu, 4 Jul 1996 12:37:14 +0800) - Re: Lack of PGP signatures - David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com>
- 1996-07-04 (Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:25:07 +0800) - Re: Lack of PGP signatures - snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
- 1996-07-05 (Fri, 5 Jul 1996 09:21:16 +0800) - Re: Lack of PGP signatures - “Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>