From: jdwilson@gold.chem.hawaii.edu (Jim Wilson (VA))
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 17:13:15 PST
To: drzaphod@brewmeister.xstablu.com (DrZaphod)
Subject: Re: PGP posting validation
In-Reply-To: <m0pLf52-0003DxC@brewmeister.xstablu.com>
Message-ID: <9401170109.AA26968@gold.chem.hawaii.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
>   Robert A. Hayden [hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu] wrote:
> 
> > > Here's my two cents' worth- how about a filter on incoming mail to the list
> > > that performs these functions:
> > >   1) check the incoming post for a PGP signature
> > >   2) If a sig is found, check it against the list's public keyring
> 
> 	Hmm.. this would allow us to prove that THE LIST thinks he's
> who he says he is.. or who THE LIST tells us he is.. Now, I am not
> paranoid against THE LIST, but I suggest that THE PEOPLE should
> not filter THEIR thoughts.  What of censorship [on an aside, is there
> a censor apprenticeship?  Why the 'ship?']!?  If you must censor.. 
//               //                  //             //           //

As to why you might want to check against a list, consider it private and
a priviledge to participate in.  Another example, 'punksters decide to work
collaboratively on a project and want to restrict the exposure/discussion to
trusted list members to protect the project from outside influence/intervention,
Bottom line, don't you want to know that the person you think you are respondingto today is the same person you were communicating last week etc?  Don't you
want to keep someone from pretending to be you and sending out opinions etc.
which might damage your reputation or misrepresent you?  This is NOT censorship
i.e. it does NOT stop you from expressing your views, it only ensures that a
message which appears to be from you really IS from you.

 -Jim