Re: Mandatory sig workaround

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

(I've returned from a day and evening away from this list to find, not
unexpectedly, a lot of acrimony. As I have to skim through so many
messages, it is my preference this early in the morning to comment
mostly on things I agree with, as I just did with James Donald. (Right
after posting on a point of agreement, I saw his negative reaction to
my points, and lack the energy right now to respond to them.))

Eric Hughes wrote:

>    As a side note, if you want people to sign their notes, why aren't you
>    doing so now?
> 
> For the same reason that Tim isn't--it's too difficult.
> 
> Now I've just recently set up a new email machine and I expect that
> I'll be able to get signing set up on it before the end of the year.
> I have plenty of irons in the fire already, and this isn't the top
> priority.

"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.

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.

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.

If people feel it would be better for the Cause if I eschewed writing
on the issues I write aboue in favor of not writing, presenting, etc.,
and instead becoming a Unix gearhead, able to transparently sign all
messages, then send your comments to me. 

>    it would seem that signing
>    your own messages would be a good way of starting things toward the
>    direction you want to go.
> 
> It certainly would.  My priorities on this are to get myself set up
> for signing.  Then I need to get a recognizer written, then to hack
> vacation to use alternate database files, then to get my own personal
> resource list compiled, then to set my personal nagware.  Only after
> all that do I intend to alter the list.

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 May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay