From: roy@cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 05:46:58 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Mandatory sig workaround
In-Reply-To: <199412011022.CAA24283@netcom3.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <941201.071127.7W2.rusnews.w165w@cybrspc.mn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I'm not at all sure what to make of where this argument is going.  Tim
May writes:

> "Plenty of irons in the fire" is indeed the crucial point. Learning
> how to make UQWK talk to AutoPGP in elm (or whatever) is apparently
> fine for some people (by my estimate, 20% of those who post), but many
> of the most valued (who shall remain nameless here) posters are *not*
> signing posts. I urge you all to watch who signs and who doesn't.

It may just be that it's early and I'm only on my first cup of coffee,
but are you suggesting an inverse correlation between the quality of a
submission and the presence of a signature, Tim?  While I'd agree that
many of the quality list members don't sign their articles, I don't
think I can make the leap that signed messages have no useful content.
Please tell me I misread you.

> Face it, some fraction of people on this list are gearheads, with
> their own Pentiums or Suns sitting on the Net and with lots of
> Unix/Linux tools they like to play with and that they can use to
> compile their premails and procmails and whatnot. More power to them.

Or perhaps just a lowly 486 running DOS and UUCP.  But I heard that
Cypherpunks Write Code, so I wrote PGP support into my signature
controller.  I have signed all my email for 2 years, and all net traffic
for nearly a year.  Gearhead?  Perhaps I am.  But this ain't no Porsche.

> But many of us have "other irons in the fire" and don't plan anytime
> soon to abandon our existing tools (in my case, a PowerMac 7100AV,
> with video digitizers, etc., FrameMaker, Mathematica, SmalltalkAgents,
> etc.) in favor of more PGP-friendly Unix boxes.

Which only underscores the need for better tools for the existing
platforms.  Yes, I'd like everyone to sign their traffic.  But it's not
always possible when the tools to do that are either non-existant or
arcane (which means I'm in agreement with Tim on why he doesn't sign his
traffic).

> And I intend to do none of this, choosing to focus on other things,
> which is why I object to policies designed to modify behavior in the
> way being discussed in this recent thread.

Tim, just for fun, what tools would need to appear to make it possible
for you to sign your traffic?  Maybe a description will inspire some of
the Macheads out there to get hacking.  (the astute reader will note
that I'm not suggesting new tools to the erstwhile Mr. May, as has been
done so often in the past)
- -- 
More mindless typing exercise from roy@cybrspc.mn.org
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."--Gene Spafford

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1

iQCVAwUBLt3PiBvikii9febJAQGWQQP/YmQsRfYRyg2C07Btj6Kj07n69QbPPnmY
L0wyVP9Gw155Mb1PzMcMJYzsxEnPkAn7YasXJEyBic7q1wVtW1oI9mkzd0pdpzXp
Arhlno+81W5/1GwZRuf5xlvAl/ZP81X3NgBSHvZz6il0bCrtsgvL8S2qX9Gye8ng
zmESyqp4Ec4=
=9kI0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----