-=> Quoting Bill Cheek <=-
 BC>> NOTICE OF PENDING RULEMAKING:  DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ARE SOLICITED
 BC>> The issue hasn't been raised before.  But PGP and/or digital
 BC>> signatures are a coming standard and way of life throughout
 BC>> networking, and so I am reluctant to nix the procedures just yet.
I don't see any valid reason for someone to include a PGP signature
in any FidoNet echo. Echomail being echomail, it's not "private"
in the first place. Another consideration is the waste of space of
such sigs. This isn't the internet and sysops have to put out good
money to forward stuff. If PGP sigs start becoming widespread in
Fido, it is going to mean more costs for sysops to forward.
If a Fido echomail message is so important that the sender feels he must
protect his message with an encrypted security signature, he is using
the wrong communications medium, and should be using either netmail or
internet or voice telephone to send his message.
PGP has no place in FidoNet echomail.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------