1993-12-17 - Re: Keyservers and anonymous Mailings

Header Data

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
To: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
Message Hash: b96010ee0133c0692377b2cc7403ea86fb19ba0f0ffac27de3eb4215e0d6cf26
Message ID: <199312170120.AA12272@access.digex.net>
Reply To: <soeLec2w165w@ideath.goldenbear.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-12-17 01:21:07 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 17:21:07 PST

Raw message

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 17:21:07 PST
To: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
Subject: Re: Keyservers and anonymous Mailings
In-Reply-To: <soeLec2w165w@ideath.goldenbear.com>
Message-ID: <199312170120.AA12272@access.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Black Unicorn <uunet!access.digex.net!unicorn> writes:
> 
> > It seems that PGP keyservers have been attacked of late for 
> > alleged copyright violations.  Nice tactic if you are PKP I guess.  
> 
> As far as I can tell, the copyright issue exists only in David 
> Sternlight's addled mind; and even he has conceded that he's got no 
> factual basis for asserting that PGP might infringe someone's copyright. 
> I can't tell if his messages about this reflect actual confusion about 
> the difference between patent and copyright, or if he's simply stumbled 
> across another FUD tactic to use against PGP.
> 
> 
> --
> Greg Broiles                       Lemon Detweiler Pledge?
> greg@goldenbear.com                  You're soaking in it.
> 

In david's case, I think it was confusion.
In my case, lack of sleep.

:)

-uni- (Dark)





Thread