From: Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 9691aec356119e5c5a6e695e5d37d683471af75663e6a9647b22c0f47b95de69
Message ID: <2890.2AD73B43@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1992-10-10 20:15:12 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 13:15:12 PDT
From: Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 13:15:12 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: re: Re: +-=*^
Message-ID: <2890.2AD73B43@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
(to: gg@well.sf.ca.us)
Thank you for clarifying my particular problem: what I was worried
about was *authentication* not security. I had the two tangled up.
Duh.
With an informal email/introducer setup for the FidoNet, we'll have a
fairly secure system with a reasonable level of authentification,
practically speaking, with authentification to some high level doable
on an individual basis. (Using PGP.)
This probably as "good as it gets" in our (email) environment.
* Origin: World Power Systems / FidoNews / San Francisco CA (1:125/111)
--
Tom Jennings - via FidoNet node 1:125/555
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!kumr!fidogate!111!Tom.Jennings
INTERNET: Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Return to October 1992
Return to “Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings)”
1992-10-10 (Sat, 10 Oct 92 13:15:12 PDT) - re: Re: +-=*^ - Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings)