On (05/08/03 07:55), Steve Lamb wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 07:20:02 -0700 > Alan Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 5 07:07:40 2003 > > > On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:04:11 -0500, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > alanconnor writes: > > > > > Still doesn't make sense to me and I am seriously considering > > > > > writing a stanza in my newsreaders filters that will dump any posts > > > > > with PGP sigs. > > > > > I think maybe I will start signing everything. > > > > I think that's a good idea. ;) > > > Here's how my CR program is working at present: > > You've missed the point. The point is that if you're going to drop PGP > signed messages they want to sign messages so you'll drop them as they don't > want your idiot ramblings on their topics. > > > I don't ever see the mail and the whole process is user-transparent.
At the risk of being picky if the user doesn't see any of what is going on, it is not user-transparent but opaque ;) As a disinterested observer (who currently has yet to get grips with filtering spam - I do it manually at present) this argument seems to be somewhat circular and repetitive .... or maybe I'm missing some subtle illumination ... or maybe it is Monty Python ;) > > Uh, no, it is not. SA is user-transparent. Yours is user hostile. > Regards Clive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]