Yo! Rich:
Thursday August 29 1996 12:18, Rich Willbanks wrote to Bill Cheek:
 BC>> Now for example, even as Moderator, I do not have the authority to
 BC>> permit encrypted messages on this echo.  There is some doubt as to
 BC>> whether I have the authority to allow digital signatures.  There is
 BC>> very little else, however, that constrains me, as moderator.  Some
 BC>> basic technical policies, but nothing too far out.
 RW> Hey Bill.  I've kept out of this because I really don't care one way
 RW> or the other.  (Although I do get a little urinated off when a see a
 RW> msg with two lines and a PGP sig of 10.)
That is stretching it a bit, I'd say..........
 RW> Heck I can't even figure out how to use PGP to encrypt msgs.
Don't feel pregnant, or otherwise standing out like a sore thumb.  I can't 
either.  :-(
 RW> I do use it to encrypt files that I don't want any one to read.  We
 RW> all have things we want to keep from the wife don't we? 
Yes.  Maybe even some of our sensitive scanner files.....eh?
 RW> Ok enough chit-chat.  If you question the FIDO legality or your
 RW> authority to moderate PGP sigs then why not ask the FIDO bosses?
Easier said than done.  You ever ask a lawyer a question?  It's about the 
same. But I can proscribe PGP sigs without outside approval.  I'm not sure I 
can allow them, though.
 RW> The node or zone god should be able to tell you.
You ever talk to a lawyer that's been dead for 9 days?
 RW> BTW you are correct (everybody gets lucky ever now and again )
 RW> Policy 4 is really vague on the point.  Then again I think you could
 RW> declare them excessively annoying.
Probably so.  OTOH, since they're not used a whole lot here, I may just wait 
until I feel up to monkeying around with the Rules again.
Bill Cheek | Internet: bcheek@cts.com | Compu$erve: 74107,1176
Windows 95 Juggernaut Team | Microsoft MVP
--- Hertzian Mail+
---------------