Re: Mandatory sig workaround

[Bob Snyder <snyderra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>]

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

Eric Hughes scribbles:

> Fine.  I still win.  My purpose is to communicate that I want list
> users to use encryption.  If you feel the need to use someone else's
> service, then you have at least been exposed to the fact that
> signatures are desired at toad.com.

> Some people may find a way around it.  OK.  I still get the initial
> sign-on message that new users see.  Most people get the message.
> That's what I want.

As a personal policy I don't sign usenet news or mailing list
postings, unless special circumstances arise, I sign most personal
email where the text will be longer than the signature, or I know the
other person is a proponent of PGP, and I encrypt messages to people I
know can receive them without too much pain.  I don't sign/encrypt to
mailing list, as many people get disgruntled by it, and can cause
problems of it's own.

I suspect that most people on the list have worked with PGP at some
point, simply because of the nature of the list.  I don't see a
problem with signing/encrypting to Cypherpunks for 90% of the people
that contribute.

How about just an annoyance responder that sends a piece of mail to
people who post without signing/encrypting, telling them they should
be encrypting, that it's the preferred method of doing things, and to
do so in the future if possible?

As a side note, if you want people to sign their notes, why aren't you
doing so now?  I apologize if this has already been asked and I missed
it, and it's not intended as a flame, but it would seem that signing
your own messages would be a good way of starting things toward the
direction you want to go.

Bob

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

iQCVAwUBLtyNZuS0CjsjWS0VAQFa+QQAqxXi8zCdKSQZKPBY2TdAxkj5qtGrA3Os
berJslmnPdnpdc1xfpoWBnnT57d/z6EyExh1rDRxlXmENbB3uxl/X+ycq3XooiJo
0d0OeSiuHlKZLjEHN5en2b/6Lzv2uyxCRsJyfwJ8c+AIKsOiupRqBo8/jPnJ5zhf
QYXDnVeZ5Gw=
=Fdp+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----