Yo! Bill:
Monday August 19 1996 15:50, Bill Funk wrote to Bill Cheek:
 BC>>>> Except that digital sigs are coming into vogue everywhere else.
 BF>>> They may be in vogue, but do they have anything to do with scanning?
 BF>>> It seems to me that if the post isn't coded, a decoding key is simply
 BF>>> not needed. As such, it becomes part of a signature line, and should
 BF>>> be limited as any other sig line. As I see it.
 BC>> Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment.....which is what I have
 BC>> been doing anyway..........
 BF>  OK, I see what you are saying.
 BF>  I was under the impression that the actual question was whether to 
llow
 BF> PGP sigs to exceed the 4-line limit on SIG's, and that's what I've been
 BF> trying to keep this to.
Well, I'm not sure that can be done.  Maybe it can.  But I doubt it.  I don't 
mind increased overhead in messaging nowdays given the extremely low cost of 
it.  I am interested in any sort of tool that will serve to prove up who 
people are and to negate or render impotent any attempts at anonymity.
 BF> What I'm saying is this: If PGP sigs are coded messages, they would
 BF> seem to be illegal under FIDO rules.   If not, then they seem to be
 BF> part of SIGs, and as such, should be subject to the rules for them.
 BF>  Did I miss something? If so, I'll re-think.
I can't buck the Fido Policy on that score, and so it is not at issue.  If 
the Headshed eventually rules that a PGP sig is a message, then that's that.  
If a sig only, then I am open to amending the rules to accommodate it.
The objective is to maintain a sense of openness here and to guard against 
the sort of anonymity and treachery that is creeping into the Internet.  
That's why I've declared this topic open until further notice.  My mind is 
not made up, and I am in no hurry to make it up.  I am open to all input 
that's above the personal emotion level.
I really don't want to weigh and deliberate what people "want and feel".  I 
want to weigh and deliberate the facts and the substance, if you catch my 
drift.  Could be that someday, our echo software will allow us to turn off 
the display of PGP signatures just like we can no do with the message headers 
and footers.  Take a look at your own stuff there.........there is a boatload 
of "garbage" in a message header and footer.  Chances are that your software 
does not display that information or at least allows the option.
Well, I have to look farther ahead than tomorrow.  So the jury is out, and I 
am looking for sum, substance, and facts.......which I am sure you will 
appreciate in the long run.  And that's what I play for....the long run.   
)
Bill Cheek | Internet: bcheek@cts.com | Compu$erve: 74107,1176
Windows 95 Juggernaut Team | Microsoft MVP | Moderator - SCANRADIO
--- Hertzian Mail+
---------------