Yo! Pete:
Wednesday August 14 1996 21:47, Pete Hopping wrote to 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.
 PH> I don't see any valid reason for someone to include a PGP signature
 PH> in any FidoNet echo. Echomail being echomail, it's not "private"
 PH> in the first place.
No, but what if three or four "Pete Hopping's" start posting hither and yon? 
What if orders are placed in your name?
 PH> Another consideration is the waste of space of such sigs. This isn't
 PH> the internet and sysops have to put out good money to forward stuff.
 PH> If PGP sigs start becoming widespread in Fido, it is going to mean
 PH> more costs for sysops to forward.
Cost is not an issue.  I pay $2.37 every 3-months for a monstrous load of 
mail. The old days were maybe a different matter, but anymore, cost is 
insignificant.
The argument for it is hollow, anyway.
 PH> If a Fido echomail message is so important that the sender feels he
 PH> must protect his message with an encrypted security signature, he is
 PH> using the wrong communications medium, and should be using either
 PH> netmail or internet or voice telephone to send his message.
 PH> PGP has no place in FidoNet echomail.
Well, that could be.  But no matter what we think of it, security for 
telecoms is on the way......and it is not likely that Fido will continue to 
plow its furrows with a horse.
SO what about taglines?  Is a tagline a less of a waste than a digital sig?
Bill Cheek | Internet: bcheek@cts.com | Compu$erve: 74107,1176
Windows 95 Juggernaut Team | Microsoft MVP
--- Hertzian Mail+
---------------