From: an5877@anon.penet.fi (deadbeat)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 03:22:19 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Signing Keys for Nyms and Digibank Users
Message-ID: <9312011118.AA27394@anon.penet.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> If I remember right, none of these people puts a PGP Key ID or fingerprint
> in their posting signatures, so I don't have that clue available -
> that would increase my confidence a lot.  But I still couldn't be sure.

Suppose one were an anon@penet.fi subscriber, and that one were strict in
digitally signing all messages, and that one's public key were available
from the PGP public key servers, and that one conducted affairs in this
way for a lengthy period.  Would the confluence of the Email identification
in the digitally signed message with the identity on the PGP public key
along with the presumption of good identity management on the Finnish
remailer be of sufficient weight to convince you to sign one's PGP
public key?  Would existing signatures on a PGP public key influence
your decision?

DEADBEAT <na5877@anon.penet.fi>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQBFAgUBLPxHnvFZTpBW/B35AQF68AF+LqDXWrjntXqW0bqgdIETD+aOddCAvJIA
J02n5sreNbTv/1beDYpL1vQiA/3vHZOl
=MH5W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.