From: Dave Horsfall <dave@esi.COM.AU>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 94 01:07:03 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: broadcast encryption
In-Reply-To: <aa66a05403021023b24d@DialupEudora>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.88.9408091707.A25665-0100000@eram.esi.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 4 Aug 1994, Bob Snyder wrote:

> This may be blasphomey on this list, but I don't have a problem with the
> restriction on obscuring the meaning of transmissions on the amateur bands.

Etc.  I've been using PGP for authenticating my packet messages for
some months, for precisely the reasons you outlined.  I get the
occasional "stop wasting bl**dy bandwidth" but most of the time it
results in more PGP users.  I'm also careful to explain that PGP can't
be used to prove I did NOT write an unsigned nasty-gram (until we get
true authentication within the BBS, by which I hope the concept of a
BBS will disappear :-) but it makes a strong case if I sign ALL my
bulletins.

Yes, we get forged messages on Amateur packet radio; some of them are
quite defamatory.

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) | dave@esi.com.au | VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC | PGP 2.6
Opinions expressed are mine. | E7 FE 97 88 E5 02 3C AE  9C 8C 54 5B 9A D4 A0 CD