On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Andy Schmidt [NJ] wrote: > Eric Lundquist wrote: > > > It _does_ limit conversation, since 99.9% of the people aren't willing to > > put up with the hassle of decrypting each message, and either won't read > > or will simply unsubscribe. > > PGP can be used to AUTHENTICATE a message, you don't have to encrypt/decrypt > the message. Furthermore, the list server could implement PGP (or another > authentication scheme) and reject any message that does NOT authenticate. This > way, PGP would be transparent to the readers. Doesn't this require everyone to use PGP? If so, you'll lose 99% of the user base. The list is about diving, not techno-geeking. If it isn't 150% transparent to the users, EVERY user, it's not going to be accepted. > The net effect would be, that people who are concerned about fakes could send > messages using PGP and authenticity would be guaranteed and fakes would be > immediately recognized. What about the other 99% of the users, who aren't concerned, don't have PGP installed, and won't use it? Let's drop this idea and discuss diving. -Eric -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Lundquist, Systems Manager ericl@oc*.wa*.ed* (206)543-0594 School of Oceanography, Box 357940, Univ of Wash, Seattle, WA, USA 98195 http://www.ocean.washington.edu/people/staff/ericl/
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]