1994-12-01 - Re: Auto-Verifying of Sigs

Header Data

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: ecd873f8b6cae143bc11d28396ce8636ae08e1f239debea88522e0d400f37ac3
Message ID: <199412010119.RAA12002@largo.remailer.net>
Reply To: <MAILQUEUE-101.941130155708.416@mhc.uiuc.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-01 00:20:33 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 16:20:33 PST

Raw message

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 16:20:33 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Auto-Verifying of Sigs
In-Reply-To: <MAILQUEUE-101.941130155708.416@mhc.uiuc.edu>
Message-ID: <199412010119.RAA12002@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

   From: "JEFF LICQUIA (CEI)" <JLICQUIA@mhc.uiuc.edu>

   Really, the only "unknown" with signed messages is whether they are valid 
   or not; it's pretty easy to distinguish the unsigned posts.  

The purpose of adding a header line to mark unsigned articles is _not_
to indicate that they aren't signed, it's to editorialize on the fact
that they're not signed.

There has been an argument that since marking doesn't accomplish
anything you couldn't already see, that it's useless.  Fine, the
premise is specious, because it's not intended to mark unsigned posts,
it's to comment on them.

   May I propose a "better" way (you be the judge here): Proxy the job.

A proxy should have it's own subscription list, which makes it an
opt-in system.  Other than that, I think a verifying proxy is a good