Re: PGP posting validation

["W. Kinney" <kinney@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>]

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


Robert A. Hayden writes:

>How would requiring that postings made to a list be verifyable be
>censorship?  What it does is verify that REAL people posted the message
>and that the person who's address is on the message is actually the person
>that posted it.

I have to say, I'm uncomfortable with this, not even _considering_ the 
ironic similarity some of the ideas brought up lately bear to LD's original 
points about True Names and reputation servers.

My point of view is that if the possibility of being spoofed is high 
enough, that should provide sufficient incentive to the the _poster_ to PGP 
sign his messages.

None of this, however, precludes offering auto-validation of signatures by 
the list software as a service to those who choose to avail themselves of 
it.

                                -- Will


(Feeling rather smug that I've been signing most of my posts for a 
while...)




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3

iQCVAgUBLTmKpvfv4TpIg2PxAQEV9wP9G2B6fy4GbH5K++8jdhbCWaJvZmcBFrda
H9oCDHCUKwdCv/pTzxce/qupqYb5LQTHAAbvJJMl/GpwwfksGpYhxPJuc8kEqgI8
SUIhDstWjve5PqgALDPToL0Oh49vZpwG2YZbUHCg+fAs9oYVbyS8pOGCWU2im90K
wV9RM8HNoTQ=
=6eB+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----