From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
To: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Message Hash: ce3988fafb3d54c91d705ca094d59defc1294773e0e945a0ac27fc7f24f7032a
Message ID: <199605080409.VAA06882@netcom8.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-08 08:09:37 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 16:09:37 +0800
From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 16:09:37 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: Transitive trust and MLM
Message-ID: <199605080409.VAA06882@netcom8.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 11:13 PM 5/7/96 -0400, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>From: IN%"frantz@netcom.com" 7-MAY-1996 23:02:33.09
>
>>Some of the solution to this problem may come from the answer to the
>>question, "What am I trusting the receiver with?" I can see a number of
>>possibilities:
>
> I think you've forgotten to allow for the signature use. I may want to
>know if someone who's posting is indeed the usual/proper person posting from
>that address, and in most situations without transitivity I won't be able to
>tell.
Indeed, signing is something I shouldn't forget (having harassed Senator
Leahy on the same subject). I will offer two observations on the subject:
(1) Many posts signed by the same key define a personality. The key is
"key", not the email address, but they become associated. (2) When in
doubt, ask the poster via private email. This method reduces to the levels
of trust I described in, "What am I trusting the receiver with?"
N.B. I don't sign my posts because I want "implausible deniability".
Regards - Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting
(408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Return to May 1996
Return to “frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)”
1996-05-08 (Wed, 8 May 1996 16:09:37 +0800) - Re: Transitive trust and MLM - frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)