Yo! Joe:
Wednesday August 14 1996 19:09, Joe Nicholson wrote to Bill Cheek:
 BC>> Digital signatures don't involve encryption of the message,
 BC>> nor its headers or footers. There is nothing hidden from view.
 JN>       Encryption obviously makes this review impossible.  Therefore,
 JN>       encrypted and/or commercial traffic that is routed without the
 JN>       express permission of all the links in the delivery system
 JN>       constitutes annoying behavior.
 JN>  POLICY4 doesn't mention "messages". It forbids encryption of routed
 JN>  traffic (echomail and netmail), and that term includes signitures.
Well, there is a lot of "hair" growing all over that one, for sure.  I will 
investigate the POLICY4 interpretation, but I think it will remain nebulous 
since a digital signature contains no message component, and in the strictest 
sense, does not contain any "intelligence", either.  It's just a signature.
Aside from Policy4 which may or may not hold water for digital sigs, what is 
your personal reason for being adamantly against it?  If it validates a 
message as coming from one and only one identifiable person, is that not in 
keeping with the highest traditions of networking?
Bill Cheek | Internet: bcheek@cts.com | Compu$erve: 74107,1176
Windows 95 Juggernaut Team | Microsoft MVP
--- Hertzian Mail+
---------------