Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Johannes, So you are a very privileged person. I consider your argument arrogant and unpolite to those readers here, who are not as privileged as you are (and I am) considered internet access costs. JMP What?! *Priviledged*? I know that in roughly 70% of countries you have JMP somewhat digital access to the phone network (yes, as well so called JMP third world countries like in south america and so on!). So you insist in beeing unpolite to the remaining 30% ? I'm afraid you didn't understand my point: we are privileged *because* we do have a quick and very cheap internet access. Rest assured that we do have a lot of subscribers on this list which do not have this luck. This has always been a list for people all over the world, and we moderators will enforce that it stays this way. JMP PS: Mal im Ernst?! Bei ISDN-GG 50 Mücken und Flat 80, sonst IbC bei JMP nichtmalmehr 2 Pfg/min, wer soll da privilegiert sein?!! Das ist doch JMP nicht dein Ernst?! Moderators note: this is an english speaking list. If you want to talk with me in german please do it via private mail. -- Regards, Wolfgang Co-moderator TBUDL / TBBETA discussion lists Using The Bat! 1.45 under Windows 95 4.0 Build B in Stadtallendorf, Germany, on a 166Mhz Cyrix, 128MB SDRAM, half SCSI system ;-) http://www.wolfgang-kynast.de/ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hey Wolfgang ^:) Am 10.08.2000 so gegen 09:30 meintest Du: So you insist in beeing unpolite to the remaining 30% ? What you call "Internet" in the remaining 30% ist nor what we understand under the termn "Internet". This has always been a list for people all over the world, and we moderators will enforce that it stays this way. With the addition of S/MIME to TB, you will have *many* (90%, don't we all love statstics?) of S/MIME signed messages. And I say it again. IMNSHO signing a messages with PGP or S/MIME is a *lesser* evil than using software like Oubreak Excess^h^h^hOutluck Express^h^h^hOutlook Express which sends *DEFAULT* a message as multipart/alternative (=HTML *and* Text!!!). Thats my point! Moderators note: this is an english speaking list. If you want to talk with me in german please do it via private mail. I was upset. Cheers, Johannesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - -- A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.3 Comment: Freiheit stirbt in kleinen Stücken iQEVAwUBOZKaswt4MvNz1i1BAQEskAgAr0vR3V0hHqACN9JpJHbjP/KQSGJPRKfX 9MwwL0YwLQ+ZBaVPeOq6tVEX/XGwVQWyj02WYnKvuTNcZTqiLPmBnZumc4m0EwLc r5Rh38vV4uKNEyREM2hz6Io58wJ5jq06yxGjaw0H2P0jR9nYuCMYZl7Ltu4q6HHn u+hOwm2g4rSaJyZboB7J2BQ3eDUNM7k0q74hDrhmhtxE3c2aQDow+2ylg/vXpcA0 sJwG/rAwYIHIziBcgtte6+a8uMOlohGKmeEOzYHHlslKiFCCj8E1zRRX32lBFfOI 5pYUanRL4ikWWg78SsvMFDtxn2zma4yPXK92+PSOv0FHdAy0LilWLA== =MveJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Grüß Dich Wolfgang, Am 08.08.2000 so gegen 14:12 meintest Du: So you are a very privileged person. I consider your argument arrogant and unpolite to those readers here, who are not as privileged as you are (and I am) considered internet access costs. What?! *Priviledged*? I know that in roughly 70% of countries you have somewhat digital access to the phone network (yes, as well so called third world countries like in south america and so on!). Thomas seems to connect at *9.600bps*! This is what "we" get over a GSM mobile. Now you call me priviledged for having a ISDN setup? You get for 10$ POTs access in Germany! Cheers, Johannesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: Mal im Ernst?! Bei ISDN-GG 50 Mücken und Flat 80, sonst IbC bei nichtmalmehr 2 Pfg/min, wer soll da privilegiert sein?!! Das ist doch nicht dein Ernst?! - -- While you don't greatly need the outside world, it's still very reassuring to know that it's still there. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.3 Comment: Freiheit stirbt in kleinen Stücken iQEVAwUBOZGfXgt4MvNz1i1BAQHI/Af+MU8xrqMggzg59sSOhhpSc/TqTlKaUbJ3 d807iMxkShFANvKWaNTrzUgb0SQyVqKBVfamQhZ7f7qqZh4f8yHEYDmYs0SnNIUs 0w88OoA0LvKRS1rKo3sJaZ4CvS9CyhPicI7Xy7U45YYgoEoZGLckfotHl8o+KbJa vUWU65L1mhEA1rXtHk0pvtzKMFrEVx0OCPq2zq0YehYHKVB6imEOzUpDrxCG65mo W5Gow6R6y3cM7hE7fom+o75tY9edmdOPOBqH3vQu+s6kfYY1Q0Xk4t0l/wI1rg3z pxIx/Lg7d+PVakyCmzsuQ6BZarbKyNqRmPll5PojyL12oCmUujd05A== =tA/8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hi there Steve, Am 08.08.2000 so gegen 17:31 meintest Du: Certainly reason right there to ignore it. WTF was RIT thinking when they implemented it? That energy should have been put into a decent PGP implementation. While PGP is the de-fecto standard, there is no "official" (read IETF) "statement". You have two (incompatible) choices: PGP and S/MIME... Cheers, Johannesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - -- War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ketchup is a vegetable. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.3 Comment: Freiheit stirbt in kleinen Stücken iQEVAwUBOZGgDwt4MvNz1i1BAQFB2gf+Mty79HClz62rNlNv9lLlGCpPzKGhgPFc 5150AWMt6+P+NAklVJPFSUm7vP0P0tp3hhyDLCcgc35iXjvGlXWsMrRH9riCIWy8 st85xMICgtY0sEy+a/8rCid8uiil0rKETVQJwBDZDlcGgaijl1oee2DyMyRcQPIy 8kjQlbjh+YZ0z+AfiRKtc/guJ1oOKsp3MTHPmC/SZse2q5/7szEoapAN43P3omo9 U92eB9r20v/XD41IRcePFywK0U/u90FS3Vu+gscXZphZi7Ae3Kp53Jr8/CbNlSZL VsmbAAGm9jne+M4sWKwIo5cpsDjU+WP1SBoeXdLFkvm8ON3vGubsOg== =iNEj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
SL PGP, GPG signatures are ok. But that travesty called S/MIME has got SL to go! 2870 bytes to sign something far less than that!? Yeah, the signatures are too long. Do they really have to be that long to maintain the desired standard of authentication? OTH, PGP 6.5.1.i is a 8.1mb download (i just did) and needs 15mb of hard disk space ... a S/MIME certificate is a couple of 100 bytes and just imports into the address book. just sayin' ... it all depends on wether you got disk space or bandwidth to spare ;-) -- Rob -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi there Thomas, Am 08.08.2000 so gegen 05:28 meintest Du: Well, not quite. While I don't pay online time while I'm in the office (connected through the LAN), I have to pay per-minute when I am at home. So, I do care if message are 6K instead of 2K big, especially on mailing lists. Oh come on! What do you use? ISDN? In times of flatrates at 80 DM, I can only laugh at discussions 'bout "your .sig is longer than 4 lines" and "2k vs 6k". Even if you're using a modem, it supports compression, so you *wont* notice the difference between 2k and 6k. Really :) (Now you may if GMX starts throttling again, but this is not in your control and then it doesn't matter if the message is 2k or 6k or 15k btw 'caus you won't get anything out of the d***ed POP3 server...) Cheers, Johannesmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats. -- Ben Franklin -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Johannes, JMP Oh come on! What do you use? ISDN? In times of flatrates at 80 DM, I JMP can only laugh at discussions 'bout "your .sig is longer than 4 lines" JMP and "2k vs 6k". So you are a very privileged person. I consider your argument arrogant and unpolite to those readers here, who are not as privileged as you are (and I am) considered internet access costs. -- Regards, Wolfgang Co-moderator TBUDL / TBBETA discussion lists Using The Bat! 1.45 under Windows 95 4.0 Build B in Stadtallendorf, Germany, on a 166Mhz Cyrix, 128MB SDRAM, half SCSI system ;-) http://www.wolfgang-kynast.de/ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[3]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hello, the Bat! list recipients, Tuesday, August 08, 2000, Wolfgang Kynast wrote to Johannes M. Posel about Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules): JMP Oh come on! What do you use? ISDN? In times of flatrates at 80 DM, I JMP can only laugh at discussions 'bout "your .sig is longer than 4 lines" JMP and "2k vs 6k". WK So you are a very privileged person. I consider your argument WK arrogant and unpolite to those readers here, who are not as WK privileged as you are (and I am) considered internet access costs. I have no charge access but still I'd rather join Wolfgang. -- Best regards, Oleg Zalyalov. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! version 1.45 under Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 6 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:17:26AM +0100, Deryk Lister wrote: Not really. S/MIME insists on including the entire certificate, whilst the PGP version (key) has the nice friendly download-it-manually method :) You're joking, right? That has GOT to be a joke. Who the hell would make a bonehead move like that? -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 08:45:12AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OTH, PGP 6.5.1.i is a 8.1mb download (i just did) and needs 15mb of hard disk space ... a S/MIME certificate is a couple of 100 bytes and just imports into the address book. just sayin' ... it all depends on wether you got disk space or bandwidth to spare ;-) 8.1Mb once for something reasonable or ~3k per message forever? Hmmm... After 2730 messages the SLIME signatures would take over. Think that is a lot? Here are the stats for the last 10 days on my machine. Exim statistics from 2000-07-28 07:36:18 to 2000-08-06 07:35:12 Grand total summary --- At least one address TOTAL VolumeMessagesHosts Delayed Failed Received 21MB6349 172 208 3.3%220 3.5% Delivered 94MB 38419 394 And later on we get to see where some of those messages are delivered to. Top 50 local destinations by message count -- 3342 10336340 grey 21357289427 vamprys In 10 days I beat that 2730 messages easily and my roommate has come close. Personally, give me PGP with its /option/ to send the cert in each message (checked to OFF thank you with an electric shock upon people attempting to set it on) and a small signature each message versus SLIME where, in wide use, a larger volume day in and day out. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
PGP, GPG signatures are ok. But that travesty called S/MIME has got to go! 2870 bytes to sign something far less than that!? Yep :) Personally I'm not having a go at the people who use it (doesn't look like you are either), especially since S/MIME support is still early in TB and needs to be tested. The thing that bugs me is that it exists to start with :) It's just an extra standard for Microsoft to build into everything, and there are far better equivalents (PGP,GPG) around. PGP is fine for mailing lists... takes up almost nothing. I have to disagree here, PGP is pretty useless for mailing lists. It is great for using in a circle of friends, but for a mailing list you would not only need to download that persons key to check their signature, but you would also need to phone them or something, to check if the key really belongs to them. How many people here would want to do this. A PGP signature is useless otherwise - I could easily generate a key in someone elses name, and then even upload it to a keyserver. S/MIME on the other hand is much better where you don't personally know the people you are communicating with because keys are signed centrally. Who can blame Microsoft from adopting S/MIME it is much simpler to use, and there are not the RSA / DH compatibility problems. As for the size of the signature The Bat! includes the public key in the signature, but I don't think this is a requirement of S/MIME. The option can be disabled on Outlook Express, and it would be a good idea if The Bat! had a similar option. I had a look at Outlook Express, and looked at the size of the signature block with the include key option on and off. With it on the signature was 3.8k (compared with 2.8k on The Bat!), and with it off it dropped to only 760 bytes. I nominate this option for The Bat! I prefer a 2.8K attachment with the signature, than the amount of visual noise created be a PGP message (not forgetting the "you can download my key at blahh..." bit. Whether signatures are necessary in this mailing list is another matter. It is probably too much of an overhead, but it does have a purpose, a 2.8K attachment is a bit on the big side it does at least do it's job, the few hundred bytes of a PGP signature do nothing for me. S/MIME is well designed, and I wouldn't knock it. As long as the implementation is good. An interesting about S/MIME is that if you use Outlook Express' version, and you are outside the US, and havn't downloading Microsoft's 128-bit security pack, then the 40-bit encryption that is used is almost worthless. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Steve, On Tuesday 08/08/2000 at 14:26, you wrote: On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:17:26AM +0100, Deryk Lister wrote: Not really. S/MIME insists on including the entire certificate, whilst the PGP version (key) has the nice friendly download-it-manually method :) You're joking, right? That has GOT to be a joke. Who the hell would make a bonehead move like that? They did though didn't they, unless I have it wrong? I don't think Microsoft invented S/MIME (which would explain everything as well) but they were certainly behind it a lot. -- Deryk Lister || ICQ 25869912 || www.deryk.co.uk Using The Bat! 1.46 Beta/2 under Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1 on a PentiumII-400 with 128MB PGP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Retr%20PGP%20Key Any of my keys _under_ 3072 bit (usually on keyservers) don't work. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 7:43:44 AM, David wrote: would not only need to download that persons key to check their signature, but you would also need to phone them or something, to check if the key really belongs to them. How many people here would want to do this. A PGP signature is useless otherwise - I could easily generate a key in someone elses name, and then even upload it to a keyserver. Go ahead, do it. You're completely forgetting the web of trust. We don't need to verify the identity of each person on the list, we only need to trust people who sign the keys who have verified the people on the list /or/ form a keyring with standards of acceptance which provide a reasonable assurance the person is who they say they are when they submit the key. Look at the Debian project and the PGP keys in use there. To get to be a Debian developer you need to provide legal documents, go through a phone interview /or/ be met, in person, by another Debian developer. That provides a reasonable assurance that the keyring Debian provides has a high chance, just as high if not HIGHER than Thawte keys, that the people contained in it are real. Furthermore, I meet one person, verify his key, we sign each other's keys (since we've met) and now we can trust each other's signatures on /other/ keys. That is what the web of trust provides. I trust that much more than some corporation out there who can be paid to put a stamp on something. I prefer a 2.8K attachment with the signature, than the amount of visual noise created be a PGP message (not forgetting the "you can download my key at blahh..." bit. Uhm, the visual noise can be filtered out by the client. See PMMail2k Pro for this. purpose, a 2.8K attachment is a bit on the big side it does at least do it's job, the few hundred bytes of a PGP signature do nothing for me. Because you chose to ignore what PGP has built up. Providing the SLIME key in the message does nothing. "I signed this, really, see, here's my cert, right here to verify along with the message." That is like not signing your credit card, signing it in front of the clerk, and having them accept that when they compare it against your signature on the receipt! S/MIME is well designed, and I wouldn't knock it. SLIME is completely worthless in my view from what I've seen. There are no assurances at all of people being who they say they are. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOZAnp3pf7K2LbpnFEQI2uQCdFvcn8hA165VAUn/tjGI/vOEm844AnAkK LHfSaBT2ZavTYDJOb5rdSwhP =cz3J -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 8:20:58 AM, Deryk wrote: I don't think Microsoft invented S/MIME (which would explain everything as well) but they were certainly behind it a lot. Certainly reason right there to ignore it. WTF was RIT thinking when they implemented it? That energy should have been put into a decent PGP implementation. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOZAn6npf7K2LbpnFEQKkfwCggwvhUkWv4hcOCDt9YQ/kRJ3KgsAAn0Wg JY7zLXIx3hu8GjpiDX2Vy+lf =aCHN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Steve, On Tuesday 08/08/2000 at 16:31, you wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 8:20:58 AM, Deryk wrote: I don't think Microsoft invented S/MIME (which would explain everything as well) but they were certainly behind it a lot. Certainly reason right there to ignore it. WTF was RIT thinking when they implemented it? That energy should have been put into a decent PGP implementation. Probably down to the idea that everyone already has S/MIME built into OE, and it's at least better than nothing. It's been proven that people would rather stick with lesser quality built-in stuff than take the effort to download the nicer alternatives, which is what seeded the MS/DoJ thing. Given the choice between sending a mail plain (say about an Ebay item, which is where it's a little more useful) or sending it S/MIME signed I'd rather it was at least capable of the latter. It's better than nothing... much as I wish MS would build PGP into Windows one day. -- Deryk Lister || ICQ 25869912 || www.deryk.co.uk "..." -- Cid, after feeding him a fish PGP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Retr%20PGP%20Key Any of my keys _under_ 3072 bit (usually on keyservers) don't work. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[3]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hello Deryk, Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 5:42:34 PM, you wrote to Steve Lamb: DL Hi Steve, snip Certainly reason right there to ignore it. WTF was RIT thinking when they implemented it? That energy should have been put into a decent PGP implementation. I wholeheartedly agree. DL Probably down to the idea that everyone already has S/MIME built into DL OE, and it's at least better than nothing. It's been proven that DL people would rather stick with lesser quality built-in stuff than DL take the effort to download the nicer alternatives, which is what DL seeded the MS/DoJ thing. IMHO "lesser quality" privacy is an oxymoron. Also, Microsoft has a track record of spying on its users. Like quietly sending data on applications installed on your box back to MS (proved for Win95) through storing *personal* data of the last 10 persons editing a WinWord document *in the document file* (proved for WinWord 6 thru 9). Now why would any privacy-conscious person trust MS with safeguarding his/her privacy? DL Given the choice between sending a mail plain (say about an Ebay item, DL which is where it's a little more useful) or sending it S/MIME signed DL I'd rather it was at least capable of the latter. It's better than DL nothing... much as I wish MS would build PGP into Windows one day. They will do that as soon as as they are confident that they can decipher it, not before. S/MIME they can probably handle... -- Best regards, István -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Curtis, Monday, August 07, 2000, 11:13:59 PM, you wrote: SL If there are any other PMMail people on here I'm sure they would SL back me up in saying that the interface for PMMail was much more SL slick and polished than TB!'s is. I'd love to see RITLABS take one SL release and do nothing but polish up the interface. C I agree here. I used PMMail for some time though not the PGP enabled C version. The interface is very similar to TB!'s but more polished. C The status line in it's main window does a lot for it. I'm not a PMMail user but I agree that the interface needs polishing. Others I've shown The Bat! to are put off by the interface (especially the need to use fonts on a users own computer). However, I disagree about PGP implementation: it seems to me that PGP messages should be seen to be the same in all e-mail clients, as though the client was invisible to the process. Grahammailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOZA+WejDdKubEspHEQK4oQCZAbuAMq3wgCzdA8SJe6d61hfdp+sAnj38 qF1kCgJQkbr7lbcfoF4Xpyhk =GlSC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[3]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Graham, On Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 12:07 PM, you wrote in part about "Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)": G I disagree about PGP implementation: it seems to me that PGP G messages should be seen to be the same in all e-mail clients, as G though the client was invisible to the process. They are trying to unify by adopting the RFC 2015 PGP/MIME standard internationally, which has been adopted my some MUAs already (many in Linux i.e. Mutt, TkRat, XFMail, and EXMH to name a few). AFAIK, TB! will have this too. -- Best regards, Gary Today's thought: Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that he sometimes has to eat them Adlai Stevenson PGP Public Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=SendPGPKey -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[4]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
How does one use S/Mime in TheBat? I've got a certificate and have exported it to TheBat directory but still don't seem able to use it. -- Best regards, Tonymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Tony, On 08 August 2000 at 18:50:29 GMT +0100 (which was 18:50 where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject of "Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)": TG How does one use S/Mime in TheBat? I've got a certificate and have TG exported it to TheBat directory but still don't seem able to use it. Please view the TBBETA archive where this has been discussed in full and a kind member has created a web-site which gives a full "how-to" pictorial guide. Please note that S/MIME is a beta feature and discussion of its' operation and implementation belongs in the TBBETA forum. This thread has thus far been about signing as a theory in general. -- Cheers, .\\arck Marck D. Pearlstone, Consultant Software Engineer Moderator TBUDL / TBBETA www: http://www.silverstones.com PGP key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=GET%20MARCKKEY *--- | Using The Bat! 1.46 Beta/3 S/N 14F4B4B2 | under Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 *--- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[5]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Greetings Tony! On Tuesday, August 08, 2000 at 18:50:29 GMT +0100 (which was 10:50 AM where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: TG How does one use S/Mime in TheBat? I've got a certificate and have TG exported it to TheBat directory but still don't seem able to use it. Don't feel bad, it doesn't work here either. -- ... It's amazing how much stress you can relieve with The Bat! and a keg of beer! --- The Bat! 1.46 Beta/3 + 98Lite + Revenge of Mozilla II -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[4]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Greetings Gary! On Tuesday, August 08, 2000 at 12:41:47 GMT -0500 (which was 10:41 AM where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: G Hi Graham, G On Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 12:07 PM, you wrote in part about G "Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)": G I disagree about PGP implementation: it seems to me that PGP G messages should be seen to be the same in all e-mail clients, as G though the client was invisible to the process. G They are trying to unify by adopting the RFC 2015 PGP/MIME standard G internationally, which has been adopted my some MUAs already (many in G Linux i.e. Mutt, TkRat, XFMail, and EXMH to name a few). AFAIK, TB! G will have this too. Maybe, perhaps, the RFC 2015 is seriously Flawed and should be re thought. Unless it's being pushed by special interest / government, and then what should we all expect eh? -- ... HTML FILES? I don't open them... I just delete them right off the bat! ;o) --- The Bat! 1.46 Beta/3 + 98Lite + Revenge of Mozilla II -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Greetings Steve! On Tuesday, August 08, 2000 at 08:31:54 GMT -0700 (which was 8:31 AM where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: SL Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 8:20:58 AM, Deryk wrote: I don't think Microsoft invented S/MIME (which would explain everything as well) but they were certainly behind it a lot. SL Certainly reason right there to ignore it. WTF was RIT thinking when they SL implemented it? That energy should have been put into a decent PGP SL implementation. Damn Steve, I have to totally agree with you here. -- ... Don't use Digital Duck Tape on a cracked bat, Buy The Bat! It's worth it! --- The Bat! 1.46 Beta/3 + 98Lite + Revenge of Mozilla II -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
On August 8, 2000, at 6:04:17 PM, phil Wrote: TG How does one use S/Mime in TheBat? I've got a certificate and have TG exported it to TheBat directory but still don't seem able to use it. p Don't feel bad, it doesn't work here either. Phil, not being able to figure out how to use it, and _not working_ are two different things. Marck has pointed Tony to the TBBETA archive where he will read how to use it. I see you are using the latest Beta, so you shouldn't have any problem at all using it. Why don't you bring that up on the TBBETA List so you can figure out what the problem is? -- Nick Andriash [ TB! v1.46 Beta 3 | PGP 6.5.3 | Win 98 4.10 ] Vancouver, B.C. Canada | PGP Key ID: 0x7BA3FDCE __ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: List server rules
On Monday, August 07, 2000 at 3:49 AM or thereabouts, Jamie Dainton [Bat] wrote the following about List server rules: Jamie I was looking for PIC info and found this list of ideal Jamie ListServer rules. It might be worth looking at and possibly Jamie incorporating some of them into the TB! welcome message. Jamie http://www.myke.com/piclist/ A noble thought, but if there's one thing I've learned in my mailing list experience, both as subscriber of many, and as moderator, is that many (most?) people simply (a) do not read the welcome message and/or (b) don't keep it and/or (c) figure that it applies to everyone else, but not to them :-). Sad. Like buying a new TV and immediately throwing away all documentation upon opening the box. Still, it wouldn't *hurt* to incorporate [some of] them. Chuck -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chuck Mattsen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.users.uswest.net/~mattsen =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Random Thought/Quote for this Message: The road to success is always under construction. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: List server rules
Hi Jamie, On 7 August 2000 at 09:49:10 GMT +0100 (which was 09:49 where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject of "List server rules": JDB I was looking for PIC info and found this list of ideal JDB ListServer rules. It might be worth looking at and possibly JDB incorporating some of them into the TB! welcome message. JDB http://www.myke.com/piclist/ As it happens, this is a pretty good list of LS rules and they are well written in an easy-to-assimilate style. I'd say that about 50% of them could be relevant to our lists and of those about 85% are already in our sign up - but not as simply put. Leif and I will discuss what to do about updating our welcome message (or not) accordingly and with respect to the site author's copyright. -- Cheers, .\\arck Marck D. Pearlstone, Consultant Software Engineer Moderator TBUDL / TBBETA www: http://www.silverstones.com PGP key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=GET%20MARCKKEY *--- | Using The Bat! 1.46 Beta/3 S/N 14F4B4B2 | under Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 *--- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: List server rules
Hi Jamie, On Monday 07/08/2000 at 09:49, you wrote: I was looking for PIC info and found this list of ideal ListServer rules. It might be worth looking at and possibly incorporating some of them into the TB! welcome message. http://www.myke.com/piclist/ Here's another good one: http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/dis.html There's also "Netiquette" aka. RFC 1855 - that's basically about being a nice guy online :) Part of which is posting to mailing lists... this one is pretty big and detailed. http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html Does make you wonder if 6K is a bit big for a 5 line message ;) Not that it matters that much, but I keep all the security stuff switched off for mailing lists now. -- Deryk Lister || ICQ 25869912 || www.deryk.co.uk Using The Bat! 1.46 Beta/2 under Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1 on a PentiumII-400 with 128MB PGP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Retr%20PGP%20Key Any of my keys _under_ 3072 bit (usually on keyservers) don't work. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: List server rules
Hi Jamie, Monday, August 07, 2000, 11:51:47 AM, you wrote: DL Does make you wonder if 6K is a bit big for a 5 line message ;) DL Not that it matters that much, but I keep all the security stuff DL switched off for mailing lists now JDB Point semi taken. I'll switch off PGP and leave S/Mime turned on. With JDB people like you we need to be careful. Actually it's the S/MIME that makes the message 6K or thereabouts, the PGP doesn't make much difference. Whilst it was a new feature and being tested on TBBETA it was OK, now I find the attachments quite irritating for use on a mailing list. -- Mark Aston mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gunfleet.com Using The Bat! 1.46 Beta/3 Under Windows NT 5 0 2195 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: List server rules
On Monday, August 07, 2000, Chuck Mattsen wrote: A noble thought, but if there's one thing I've learned in my mailing list experience, both as subscriber of many, and as moderator, is that many (most?) people simply (a) do not read the welcome message and/or (b) don't keep it and/or (c) figure that it applies to everyone else, but not to them :-). Also as moderator, I'd note that while what you say is true, one reason for having clear, written rules is so that the moderators can refer offenders to them, which they were informed of, even if they didn't bother to read them. It helps to avoid battles that a moderator can get into with some of the more combative users. -- Paula Ford The Bat! 1.44 (reg) Windows 95 4.0 Build 950 __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
On August 7, 2000, at 10:27:38 AM, Mark Aston Wrote: Actually it's the S/MIME that makes the message 6K or thereabouts, the PGP doesn't make much difference. Whilst it was a new feature and being tested on TBBETA it was OK, now I find the attachments quite irritating for use on a mailing list. Mark, I'm curious why they irritate you? Is it the fact they show up in the attachment bar, even though technically they are not treated as an attachment by TB!? What if a small innocuous icon was to be put inside the Message Header Bar/Preview Pane Splitter Bar, and not take up so much horizontal space in the preview pane? I suppose I'm just trying to determine if you are against digital signatures for some reason, or the way TB! presents them, because this is an important issue for both User and Developer. I notice you use a personal signature, so why not a digital signature? Although digital signatures may seem irritating to some, I nonetheless feel we should all get into the habit of signing our messages, both personal and public, using S/MIME, PGP, GnuPG, or any other method that would ensure authenticity. It should be a habit borne out of one's security consciousness. Some argue digital signatures don't belong in Public Mailing Lists, yet I would argue otherwise. TB!'s developers did not include the recent S/MIME feature simply to try it out in TBBETA and to annoy Users thereafter, but rather as a feature of the Mail Client to be used on a day to day basis by it's Users. -- Nick Andriash [ TB! v1.46 Beta 3 | PGP 6.5.3 | Win 98 4.10 ] Vancouver, B.C. Canada | PGP Key ID: 0x7BA3FDCE __ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 07, 2000, 1:22:24 PM, Nick wrote: On August 7, 2000, at 10:27:38 AM, Mark Aston Wrote: Actually it's the S/MIME that makes the message 6K or thereabouts, the PGP doesn't make much difference. Whilst it was a new feature and being tested on TBBETA it was OK, now I find the attachments quite irritating for use on a mailing list. Mark, I'm curious why they irritate you? Is it the fact they show up in the attachment bar, even though technically they are not treated as an attachment by TB!? Nick, if I might take a stab at this, I think when he said it taking up 6k that he might actually have meant that having it take up 6k is annoying. To me, that would be annoying to. What is even more annoying is that I can't /see/ why it is taking up 6k. No idea at all since "Show kludges" no longer shows the whole message and "save as..." doesn't save the message as is, either. I guess I could export it somewhere. Just did. E-Gads! Who the hell made that standard!? The consortium of DSL providers to get people off modems! Yeesh! 41 lines to sign a message!? PGP does it in *7*. Some argue digital signatures don't belong in Public Mailing Lists, yet I would argue otherwise. PGP, GPG signatures are ok. But that travesty called S/MIME has got to go! 2870 bytes to sign something far less than that!? TB!'s developers did not include the recent S/MIME feature simply to try it out in TBBETA and to annoy Users thereafter, but rather as a feature of the Mail Client to be used on a day to day basis by it's Users. Lord, I hope not. PGP isn't bad because the signature is small compared to the body of most messages. S/MIME is larger than most messages. That puts it in a category worse than HTML mail. If they want people to use security on a day-to-day basis this is what they need to do: a: download PMMail2000 Professional b: study its PGP implementation, especially the UI c: Copy it. d: Improve upon it, if they can. I only recently started using PGP in TB! because I decided it was time start showing my beliefs in the wake of Carnivore news. Geez, is it ever a /PAIN/ to use compared to when I was using PGP on PMMail2000Pro. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOY8gPHpf7K2LbpnFEQJm3ACgn8LoBKJ0k9r5sPvxjLBVX7f6BU0AmwVi qVX+6KI1i7Bo254i25Jnf+2E =8Bzt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
On August 7, 2000, at 1:46:45 PM, Steve Lamb Wrote: SL I only recently started using PGP in TB! because I decided it was SL time start showing my beliefs in the wake of Carnivore news. Geez, SL is it ever a /PAIN/ to use compared to when I was using PGP on SL PMMail2000Pro. What were some of the features inherent in the way PMMail2000Pro implemented PGP, that are missing in TB!'s implementation? -- Nick Andriash [ TB! v1.46 Beta 3 | PGP 6.5.3 | Win 98 4.10 ] Vancouver, B.C. Canada | PGP Key ID: 0x7BA3FDCE __ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Who the hell made that standard!? The consortium of DSL providersto get people off modems Yeesh! 41 lines to sign a message!? PGP does it in *7*. I was wondering too... and the extra window is really irritating me! And I can't find a way to ignore that window. Someone a clue? I find PGP a better solution for signing your messages.. I only recently started using PGP in TB! because I decided it was time start showing my beliefs in the wake of Carnivore news. Geez, is it ever a /PAIN/ to use compared to when I was using PGP on PMMail2000Pro. In what way? Arjan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOY8XcWGb/vSxBc3UEQJ2LQCgzSZt1ZH45D5ZuiGqeoRc3C9a6vYAniJY xDMuk75OL3SyAmZCNW2RrMev =fTjy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 07, 2000, 1:59:52 PM, Nick wrote: What were some of the features inherent in the way PMMail2000Pro implemented PGP, that are missing in TB!'s implementation? Automatic signature checking, the PGP information hidden (viewing a PGP message and a normal message side by side you'd not see the dash escaping, the PGP block marking and so on), automatic encryption to both receiver /and/ sender so the sender will be able to read what they sent later, decryption only on opening (not to another message), signature information displayed in the status line (not in a separate window), etc. If there are any other PMMail people on here I'm sure they would back me up in saying that the interface for PMMail was much more slick and polished than TB!'s is. I'd love to see RITLABS take one release and do nothing but polish up the interface. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOY8mA3pf7K2LbpnFEQLEIQCg/3B43Khifg/Mq8vTuNCzKScXbDIAnig8 a8846ga+LXTxZOipHFXLKR9U =t/bG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Nick, Monday, August 07, 2000, 9:22:24 PM, you wrote: NA Mark, I'm curious why they irritate you? Is it the fact they show up in NA the attachment bar, even though technically they are not treated as an NA attachment by TB!? What if a small innocuous icon was to be put inside NA the Message Header Bar/Preview Pane Splitter Bar, and not take up so NA much horizontal space in the preview pane? I suppose I'm just trying to NA determine if you are against digital signatures for some reason, or the NA way TB! presents them, because this is an important issue for both User NA and Developer. I notice you use a personal signature, so why not a NA digital signature? No, I have nothing against digital signatures, it is the attachment bar that is annoying. As others have suggested I like the idea of button in the header bar with a drop down list of attachments, much like OL (spit!) or failing that at the bottom of the message. Whether they belong in a mailing list is debatable, personally I don't care, as long as they don't spoil my view. -- Mark Aston mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gunfleet.com Using The Bat! 1.46 Beta/3 Under Windows NT 5 0 2195 -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
On August 7, 2000, at 2:11:30 PM, Steve Lamb Wrote: SL Automatic signature checking, the PGP information hidden (viewing a SL PGP message and a normal message side by side you'd not see the dash SL escaping, the PGP block marking and so on), The only Client I've used that automatically checks PGP signatures, is Outlook 98/2000. I initially thought that a Client only had to be MAPI compliant to perform that task, but I believe Eudora offers full MAPI compliance, and yet the feature doesn't work with Eudora. I really like automatic signature checking, and hopefully TB! v2.0 will feature that ability. SL automatic encryption to both receiver /and/ sender so the sender SL will be able to read what they sent later, decryption only on SL opening (not to another message), The automatic encryption to both receiver and sender is already available through PGPKeys/Edit/Options/General... Always encrypt to default key. I am not clear on what you mean by "decryption only on opening (not to another message), but perhaps you are referring to TB!'s creating another separate decrypted message. If so... Hmmm... I could probably take or leave that feature, but if I had a choice, I'd prefer to not have a separate decrypted copy. SL signature information displayed in the status line (not in a SL separate window), etc. I agree, and I've already written to RITLabs on this, and they promised to incorporate something other than the current use of PGPLog... perhaps something along the lines of how Eudora and Outlook display the signature verification. I almost feel like downloading a trial version of PMMail2000Pro to see for myself how PGP is implemented. If memory serves, I already tried PMMail 2000, but quickly discarded it once I realised it didn't thread messages. -- Nick Andriash [ TB! v1.46 Beta 3 | PGP 6.5.3 | Win 98 4.10 ] Vancouver, B.C. Canada | PGP Key ID: 0x7BA3FDCE __ -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On August 7, 2000, at 3:06:23 PM, Steve Lamb Wrote: SL I send mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED], I do not want it SL encrypted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Encrypting to a default key is a lazy SL man's way out of a very simple problem. But isn't that a product of PGP... requiring a default key... and not that of the Mail Client. I know of no way around that. How does PMMail allow you to choose which of your keys you want your reply encrypted to? SL Exactly. PMMail decodes it each time. I'm away from my desk, email SL is still protected if I forget to lock my station. Agreed. I think I'm going to submit an official feature request to RITLabs again on this... a little redundancy wouldn't hurt. :o) - -- Nick Andriash [ TB! v1.46 Beta 3 | PGP 6.5.3 | Win 98 4.10 ] Vancouver, B.C. Canada | PGP Key ID: 0x7BA3FDCE __ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.3 Comment: Join PGP-Basics at http://www.egroups.com/group/PGP-Basics iQA/AwUBOY81HsUChHR7o/3OEQK2DACcCFPGjlahSeANE+qERMZd//W/6g4AoK2M bVDfPoVYbJlDEgcdoeFf1U2b =O4V5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:46:45 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: SL Nick, if I might take a stab at this, I think when he said it taking SL up 6k that he might actually have meant that having it take up 6k is SL annoying. To me, that would be annoying to. What is even more SL annoying is that I can't /see/ why it is taking up 6k. No idea at SL all since "Show kludges" no longer shows the whole message and "save SL as..." doesn't save the message as is, either. I guess I could SL export it somewhere. Just did. E-Gads! Who the hell made that SL standard!? The consortium of DSL providers to get people off modems! SL Yeesh! 41 lines to sign a message!? PGP does it in *7*. I see what you mean. I've looked at an exported specimen myself and see that the raw format of the S/MIME signature is the same as PGP. Why is it then that PGP signatures have to be shown as starkly as they are now, instead of being hidden with an unobtrusive indicator that it's PGP signed? It's not like the user actually *reads* the PGP signature. Why display the thing in the message body. Yuk! I much prefer how S/MIME signing is implemented in TB! compared to PGP. SL PGP, GPG signatures are ok. But that travesty called S/MIME has got SL to go! 2870 bytes to sign something far less than that!? Yeah, the signatures are too long. Do they really have to be that long to maintain the desired standard of authentication? SL Lord, I hope not. PGP isn't bad because the signature is small SL compared to the body of most messages. S/MIME is larger than most SL messages. That puts it in a category worse than HTML mail. :-) If you have PGP to use then yes, it does. HTML is plain useless in the context of text only messages without special formatting. Nothing beats the redundance of that. At least S/MIME serves an added purpose. -- -=A.C. Martin=-[TB! v1.46 Beta/3 «» Win2k Pro SP1] PGP Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendAlliePGPKey "Without my ignorance, your knowledge would be meaningless.. " -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 07, 2000, 3:16:02 PM, Nick wrote: But isn't that a product of PGP... requiring a default key... and not that of the Mail Client. I know of no way around that. How does PMMail allow you to choose which of your keys you want your reply encrypted to? I said it was a simple problem. The default key assumes you only have one key to sign to. That is not always the case. However, you can just as easily make the call for a particular key ID. Personal: 0x8B6E99C5 Personal/RSA: 0x9F81332B Professional: 0x3013737C Rather unique, no? :) - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOY85PXpf7K2LbpnFEQJG3wCgrPP15qTO5kIhN90NB6X6Vbkd1I8AoKOE m3jG6MDpgDQSKkcK2KYcvGyy =v9gt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Monday, August 07, 2000, 3:08:44 PM, Curtis wrote: I much prefer how S/MIME signing is implemented in TB! compared to PGP. Which is how PMMail2k Pro does it. A small indication on the status line is all you ever see unless you request to see the whole message. Yeah, the signatures are too long. Do they really have to be that long to maintain the desired standard of authentication? Well, given I trust PGP about 1000x more than I do S/MIME, I'd have to say no. Esp. given the message I looked at was 6k in length. A good 3-4k in signature, 1k in headers, 1-2k body. I fail to see a reason why a signature is larger than a message, ever. Nothing beats the redundance of that. At least S/MIME serves an added purpose. Only if you trust it, which I don't. TB! is the first and only place I've ever heard of S/MIME, I can't view it raw in TB!. I have no reason to trust that. - -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. - ---+- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5i iQA/AwUBOY86Dnpf7K2LbpnFEQKC3wCg+xUeRs7ulAkX6YmPT0uqiVD1ZlAAoKip +887eNw+XddeEKSZhHft+Lhg =TFch -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:11:30 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: SL -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- SL Hash: SHA1 The above simply doesn't and shouldn't be shown in a PGP signed message. :-( SL Automatic signature checking, the PGP information hidden (viewing a SL PGP message and a normal message side by side you'd not see the dash SL escaping, the PGP block marking and so on), automatic encryption to SL both receiver /and/ sender so the sender will be able to read what SL they sent later, decryption only on opening (not to another SL message), signature information displayed in the status line (not in SL a separate window), etc. TB!'s main window could do with a status line to show this among other things. The View Folder windows need status lines to display the statistics of the folder being browsed, ie, read vs unread messages plus PGP and other related stuff. SL If there are any other PMMail people on here I'm sure they would SL back me up in saying that the interface for PMMail was much more SL slick and polished than TB!'s is. I'd love to see RITLABS take one SL release and do nothing but polish up the interface. I agree here. I used PMMail for some time though not the PGP enabled version. The interface is very similar to TB!'s but more polished. The status line in it's main window does a lot for it. -- -=A.C. Martin=-[TB! v1.46 Beta/3 «» Win2k Pro SP1] PGP Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=SendAlliePGPKey "Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid " -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On August 7, 2000, at 3:33:30 PM, Steve Lamb Wrote: But isn't that a product of PGP... requiring a default key... and not that of the Mail Client. I know of no way around that. How does PMMail allow you to choose which of your keys you want your reply encrypted to? SL I said it was a simple problem. The default key assumes you only SL have one key to sign to. That is not always the case. However, you SL can just as easily make the call for a particular key ID. SL Personal: 0x8B6E99C5 SL Personal/RSA: 0x9F81332B SL Professional: 0x3013737C So are you saying that PMMail's PGP plug-in (or whatever method they use) presents you with a drop down list of Keys to encrypt your replies to so that you can read those replies later on? You are right in that there is a very simple solution to the problem. I wonder why PGP itself hasn't implemented a method that takes into account the fact some Users have more than one key they may wish to encrypt to? - -- Nick Andriash [ TB! v1.46 Beta 3 | PGP 6.5.3 | Win 98 4.10 ] Vancouver, B.C. Canada | PGP Key ID: 0x7BA3FDCE __ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 6.5.3 Comment: Join PGP-Basics at http://www.egroups.com/group/PGP-Basics iQA/AwUBOY88ScUChHR7o/3OEQKoAQCfZlho1T2VsCkbwPNVcdru+zSVXRYAoKkV UvYB1HiSOA6OXfctuWOiaCOA =rLiB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Nick Andriash wrote: So are you saying that PMMail's PGP plug-in (or whatever method they use) presents you with a drop down list of Keys to encrypt your replies to so that you can read those replies later on? No, it encodes to the Key ID assigned to the account being used to send the message. You are right in that there is a very simple solution to the problem. I wonder why PGP itself hasn't implemented a method that takes into account the fact some Users have more than one key they may wish to encrypt to? Heck if I know. Why don't the email clients just call PGP with the appropriate commands instead of going with the default behavior? -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+- -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Some argue digital signatures don't belong in Public Mailing Lists, yet I would argue otherwise. PGP, GPG signatures are ok. But that travesty called S/MIME has got to go! 2870 bytes to sign something far less than that!? Yep :) Personally I'm not having a go at the people who use it (doesn't look like you are either), especially since S/MIME support is still early in TB and needs to be tested. The thing that bugs me is that it exists to start with :) It's just an extra standard for Microsoft to build into everything, and there are far better equivalents (PGP,GPG) around. PGP is fine for mailing lists... takes up almost nothing. It's @045 already... bed time this side of the world :) -- Deryk Lister || ICQ 25869912 || www.deryk.co.uk Using The Bat! 1.46 Beta/2 under Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1 on a PentiumII-400 with 128MB PGP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Retr%20PGP%20Key Any of my keys _under_ 3072 bit (usually on keyservers) don't work. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
SL PGP, GPG signatures are ok. But that travesty called S/MIME has got SL to go! 2870 bytes to sign something far less than that!? Yeah, the signatures are too long. Do they really have to be that long to maintain the desired standard of authentication? Not really. S/MIME insists on including the entire certificate, whilst the PGP version (key) has the nice friendly download-it-manually method :) Suppose S/MIME is handy for sending to lazy OE users who don't download PGP to check things with, but in general I trust PGP and GPG far more and generally like them... (reason I trust the latter: they aren't heavily backed by big corporates. I wonder if AOL is in there with S/MIME? If so, they probably have a back door in place already) Soon as GPG for Win32 gets a decent interface, I'll switch to that :) Open Source encryption techniques (GPG) are debatable, but I prefer to see what they're up to. -- Deryk Lister || ICQ 25869912 || www.deryk.co.uk Using The Bat! 1.46 Beta/2 under Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 1 on a PentiumII-400 with 128MB PGP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Retr%20PGP%20Key Any of my keys _under_ 3072 bit (usually on keyservers) don't work. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Nick, On Monday, August 07, 2000, 5:46 PM, you wrote in part about "Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)": N I wonder why PGP itself hasn't implemented a method that N takes into account the fact some Users have more than one key they N may wish to encrypt to? They have, but in a different way. You can add any number of subkeys or your additional User IDs to your main key, and all will be read by PGP as the main key. You can simply add them in, or split them out from your keyring from individual keys to your main key. For example, I think on one of my keys, I have 3 email addresses and keys that are picked up for encryption by TB! -- Best regards, Gary Today's thought: Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. PGP Public Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=SendPGPKey -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Nick, On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:46:34 -0700GMT (08/08/2000, 06:46 +0800GMT), Nick Andriash wrote: NA So are you saying that PMMail's PGP plug-in (or whatever method they NA use) presents you with a drop down list of Keys to encrypt your replies NA to so that you can read those replies later on? In TB, I have set my own addresses as "favourites" and just BCC myself in. So I will be able to read my own mails later on. It would be better though, if there was some standard feature, as I sometimes forget to BCC myself in, and then I cannot open the message I sent earlier. :-( -- Cheers, Thomas. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.45 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 on a Pentium II/350 MHz. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re: Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)
Hi Mark, On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 22:20:37 +0100GMT (08/08/2000, 05:20 +0800GMT), Mark Aston wrote: NA Mark, I'm curious why they irritate you? Is it the fact they show up in NA the attachment bar, even though technically they are not treated as an NA attachment by TB!? What if a small innocuous icon was to be put inside [...] MA No, I have nothing against digital signatures, it is the attachment MA bar that is annoying. As others have suggested I like the idea of MA button in the header bar with a drop down list of attachments, much MA like OL (spit!) or failing that at the bottom of the message. Agree here, MA Whether they belong in a mailing list is debatable, personally I don't MA care, as long as they don't spoil my view. Well, not quite. While I don't pay online time while I'm in the office (connected through the LAN), I have to pay per-minute when I am at home. So, I do care if message are 6K instead of 2K big, especially on mailing lists. -- Cheers, Thomas. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.45 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998 on a Pentium II/350 MHz. -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
