->> While engaging targets of opportunity,
Bill Cheek shouted to Joe Nicholson...<<-
BC>
BC> Well, that's not exactly on the money there.  Digital signatures
BC> don't involve encryption of the message, nor its headers or
BC> footers.  There is nothing hidden from view.  But a digital
BC> signature certainly can authenticate a message.
BC>
BC>
BC>  BC>> We do have a rule limiting signature lines and the PGP thing
BC>  BC>> certainly appears to violate it.
BC>
BC>  JN>  Another reason they should be banned.  Make one exception
BC> and you
BC>  JN>  open a whole can of worms.
Hi Bill...
   On another net Im runnning, the same thing cropped up.
We permit fully digital encryption, and encourage 1024 bit codes. We DO 
however, like ham radio, require the to and from to be legible, just as you 
have to ID in english on Ham radio in the US.
We've taken the position that an encrypted mail base is necessary to prevent 
unauthorized viewing, and made a seperate mail base for that...
So the user makes the decision to encrypt or not to based on his capacity, 
there is NO translation done, so encrypted stuff is not mixed with the 
"in-the-clear" stuff..
 .\\arc
---
---------------