From: Jonathon Fletcher <jonathon@doe174g.sbi.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 7632dab82cf64d8e3d772cd68708ee5595426110be7d140f5746c7742ec35e13
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941130094354.3099F-100000@doe174g>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-11-30 00:44:54 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 16:44:54 PST
From: Jonathon Fletcher <jonathon@doe174g.sbi.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 16:44:54 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Market for Crypto--A Curmudgeon's View (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941130094354.3099F-100000@doe174g>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tue, 29 Nov 1994, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
[ ... stuff r'moved ... ]
>
> Personally, I'm against mandatory digitally signatures as a
> rerequisite for posting to Cypherpunks. On the other hand, I
> like the idea of having the list software automatic verify
> digital signatures. This is a valuable service I'm usually too
> lazy to perform for myself.
>
> Here's my suggestion. Eric should unilaterally impose his first
> step, i.e., all unsigned messages and messages with spoofed
> signatures will henceforth be flagged as such. Let's see what
> effect, if any, that has on the way people post their messages.
> After the protocol has been in effect for some time, we can
> re-open the topic for further discussion.
>
This is a good idea - certainly a nice way to emphasize (sp) signing
posts. Having majordomo verify signatures automatically and add message
content if either (as sandy suggests) signature is missing or bad.
One question would be whether majordomo should add content upon
verification of a signature, or upon failure to verify a signature (missing
or bad). Depends on which would have most 'positive' appearance, and
(more importantly) would generate least extra volume in the long term.
Personally I think that flagging the messages with bad or missing
signatures is a better idea - as more people sign articles on the list
there will be less flagging volume sent out by md.
Nice idea Sandy.
... only snag is that md has to be modified again. Has Eric the time and
desire to fit this in. I can't help with the perl - still not grokked it
properly.
-Jon
--
Jonathon Fletcher
j.fletcher@stirling.ac.uk
" .. all opinions expressed or implied are my own and not necessarily
those of my employer or any other party ... "
Return to November 1994
Return to “Jonathon Fletcher <jonathon@doe174g.sbi.com>”
1994-11-30 (Tue, 29 Nov 94 16:44:54 PST) - Re: The Market for Crypto–A Curmudgeon’s View (fwd) - Jonathon Fletcher <jonathon@doe174g.sbi.com>