From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 15:53:43 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "Cyherpunks Named Official Signing Authority"
In-Reply-To: <199411302114.NAA06386@netcom20.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199412010052.QAA11972@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)

   If the intent of a "Compelled Signature" (tm) policy [...]

Putting it in quotes doesn't prevent it from being a misrepresentation.

Are you saying that adding notifications and delays is compulsion, or
not?

   [...] is to get people
   used to signing messages, why not get them used to _verifying_ sigs as
   well? 

If the crypto hooks are there for sending mail, you're more than
halfway there for receiving mail.  And yes, this is also something to
encourage.

Your argument can be construed to say that since I can't encourage
signature checking, that I should add that to my list of requirements.
I've been pretty vocal about my desire for partial benefit short of
what is possible.  If server actions don't help signature checking,
OK, well then, they don't, ca va.

   Imagine the P.R. value to these Net.Cops: "But even the Cypherpunks
   require all posts to be signed!."

If the net cops are going to acknowledge a merit in a cypherpunks
position, I say let them.  The opportunity to educate the other
listeners that signatures are not the same as personal identity is an
opportunity not to be missed, especially when your opponent hands it
to you.

Eric