> 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?
 
no. clear-signing has nothing to with routing. it prevents fake msgs. 
encrypted msgs prevent interception.
 
> 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?
 
why do people put letters into envelopes or sign things with their 
ignatures?
 
> 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?
 
this has nothing to do with routing msgs. the fact that routing was a 'big 
issue' in Net 106 is irrelevant. Copernicus took a lot of heat for his 
advance, too. [grin]
 
convenience of the Opus Sysop is the reason for a PGP hook in the Opus 
editor. it is nobody's business what a Sysop does with his/her traffic.
 
QOFM.
Chris
--- DB B2300sl/001027
---------------