Christopher Baker wrote in a message to Bob Juge:
> IMHO, If the message is so sensitive or important that it needs encoding,
> I certainly wouldn't even consider routing it.  Delivering such a message
> directly ensures integrity and security.
> But then that's the crux of the argument, isn't it?  :-)
 CB> not really. encoding is a bugaboo for some folks. it's just one of
 CB> the features for me. i'm especially fond of the clear-signing
 CB> aspect.
But if a message is delivered directly, of what use is encoding and/or 
clear-signing?  Isn't it only relevant for routed messages where preventing 
others from being able to read the message is desired?
 CB> it's not a question of sensitivity or importance. it's a question
 CB> of advancing the technology to be all it can be. even a direct msg
 CB> still needs a hook to be encoded or clear-signed if it's going to
 CB> be done internally.  
What purpose does it serve other than "advancing the technology to all it can 
be"?  I'm really missing something here, I guess.  Security for security 
technology's sake?
The _routing_ of encrypted messages was the big issue here in Net 106.  
Direct messages from one BBS to another was never an issue.  I just can't for 
the life of me see where encrypting a direct message accomplishes any goal 
but the satisfaction that you've mastered the techniques, and you're at the 
"bleeding edge".  Is that all there is to it?
                                   - Bob
Internet  : bob@juge.com
Telnet, Vmodem, WWW or FTP to juge.com
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------