From: "Travis J.I. Corcoran" <tjic@OpenMarket.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:58:01 +0800
To: geoff@commtouch.co.il
Subject: Re: DCSB: Electronic Commerce: The State of the Art
In-Reply-To: <19960621090343293.AAA253@geoff>
Message-ID: <199606211415.KAA09062@cranmore.openmarket.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

Message-Signature-Date: Fri Jun 21 10:14:59 1996

>  From: geoff@commtouch.co.il (geoff)
>  Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:03:48 +0300
>  
>  The signature on the message attached below did not verify.
>  
>  Please let me know if people agree that this would be a useful 
>  service, or is it inappropriate ?

I use a lisp package for emacs that I wrote to automatically verify
signatures on incoming mail, so I already see the 10% of messages
which are improperly signed displayed in a red "bad signature" font.
Thus, I'd have no need of this service.

Further, it makes philisophical/political sense to me to have
verification distributed.  Every node should be doing it's own
security.

Be aware of CC's before replying to this.

- -- 
TJIC (Travis J.I. Corcoran)  http://www.openmarket.com/personal/tjic/index.html

                             Member EFF, GOAL, NRA.
                 opinions (TJIC) != opinions (employer (TJIC))
         "Buy a rifle, encrypt your data, and wait for the Revolution!"
	PGP encrypted mail preferred.   Ask me about dragbar-time.el for emacs.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed by mail-secure.el 1.006 using mailcrypt
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.3, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMcqubYJYfGX+MQb5AQFP5AQAzrePx1jhIfE/iHT0abqvOPQxpQ795/vk
CEJBSNLM91S3tSFXtcTvqYWRvE8BksT6l4JqwVhmDWN8U3UV60pJVqbwoLbH3bvs
fQcPT+HxvFDknrVIvQibwpOB9Pw9PCyV1mfMkyOjsJzRTCJe7XiFT7TS0bZA+VvX
Ls0Jpjozvnk=
=0x7g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----