Yo! Joe:
Tuesday August 13 1996 14:44, Joe Nicholson wrote to Bill Cheek:
 BC>> NOTICE OF PENDING RULEMAKING:  DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ARE SOLICITED
 BC>> The issue hasn't been raised before.  But PGP and/or digital
 BC>> signatures are a coming standard and way of life throughout
 BC>> networking, and so I am reluctant to nix the procedures just yet.
 JN>  They should be banned as violation of POLICY4's encryption rule.
Well, that's not exactly on the money there.  Digital signatures don't 
involve encryption of the message, nor its headers or footers.  There is 
nothing hidden from view.  But a digital signature certainly can authenticate 
a message.
 BC>> We do have a rule limiting signature lines and the PGP thing
 BC>> certainly appears to violate it.
 JN>  Another reason they should be banned.  Make one exception and you
 JN>  open a whole can of worms.
Except that digital sigs are coming into vogue everywhere else.
Bill Cheek | Internet: bcheek@cts.com | Compu$erve: 74107,1176
Windows 95 Juggernaut Team | Microsoft MVP
--- Hertzian Mail+
---------------