test tthe message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

test test
- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7tCmYACgkQOsEIjPprmuUxggP+I6ctk1GzszQj5fpco6ha4sq3
XCrEZsRjqOfIh3vvkthgMv0YAfi330cqeQu4Yh1WqHdaNh1qZtRUwKrpaEi9x5lG
2Dtd2oyK0gjv3HBysX2qj9ah5LRoagZsNuTGu403A8KMNFoYUGRLdP9pkNgJpjRv
f6YM+YRzBlX2ktNGav0=
=OGhz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/17/2011 9:32:24 PM
mozilla.test 6327 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

63 Replies
710 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 9

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
> test test
test

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7vopgACgkQOsEIjPprmuVlQwP/RPAQdFHm87JW+EBbcUkU05Un
3R+b4wytdI+remiKbzt6Jmx1jCUL6P1MVxr+whKWkerMTNcv1hXGtZQYqQseKAZz
6V1NAkYXvq2GXqxtlg/oycLFdbSGqQ3PW9Q6VIi8C87NZBF/YojR9o2wiUfiuSZq
Sb58S+1IYYhwcPlYKXs=
=VtP1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/19/2011 8:46:19 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 19/12/2011 20:46, Troy Maclure wrote:
> On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
>> test test
> test
test

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7vpugACgkQOsEIjPprmuVOzQQAhJHQAarGytNUhkqkdnm4pz9X
sxkifZ7eoQS7uBY79KCla/iOkXvU9eozlckn9hK++h8e72LoiRbFchWXHWjEjsxN
PD6W0p6g3JwcX06DqyzsOMWmCoGo4G29WRwJ3LVovOcMQQEILEl2aqkWJvy0ip0b
QHsxBYyiofGKv2yR484=
=XNJx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/19/2011 9:04:43 PM
On 19.12.2011 14:46, Troy Maclure wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
>> test test
> test
> 
> - -- 
> rsvp g, not hot, mail
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
> Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6
> 
> iJwEAQECAAYFAk7vopgACgkQOsEIjPprmuVlQwP/RPAQdFHm87JW+EBbcUkU05Un
> 3R+b4wytdI+remiKbzt6Jmx1jCUL6P1MVxr+whKWkerMTNcv1hXGtZQYqQseKAZz
> 6V1NAkYXvq2GXqxtlg/oycLFdbSGqQ3PW9Q6VIi8C87NZBF/YojR9o2wiUfiuSZq
> Sb58S+1IYYhwcPlYKXs=
> =VtP1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 0

PGP signing of a new group post is useless and adds unnecessary bytes
that is annoying to most folks. Just sayin'

-- 
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
0
Jay
12/20/2011 4:43:44 AM
On 12/19/2011 11:43 PM Jay Garcia submitted the following:
> On 19.12.2011 14:46, Troy Maclure wrote:
> 
>  --- Original Message ---
> 
> On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>>> test test
> test
> 
>> 0
> 
> PGP signing of a new group post is useless and adds unnecessary bytes
> that is annoying to most folks. Just sayin'
> 

Appears to be automatically removed when replying.
0
Ed
12/20/2011 11:40:46 AM
Ed wrote:
> On 12/19/2011 11:43 PM Jay Garcia submitted the following:
>> On 19.12.2011 14:46, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>
>>   --- Original Message ---
>>
>> On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>>>> test test
>> test
>>
>>> 0
>>
>> PGP signing of a new group post is useless and adds unnecessary bytes
>> that is annoying to most folks. Just sayin'
>>
>
> Appears to be automatically removed when replying.

I was looking at that, too, Ed.....normal sig delimiter is dash dash 
space on a line all to itself, but it seems the pgp signer has a sig 
delimiter of dash space dash dash space, which is also resulting in the 
sig being removed, at least in SM.

-- 
Daniel
0
Daniel
12/20/2011 12:07:23 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20/12/2011 04:43, Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
> PGP signing of a new group post is useless and adds unnecessary
> bytes that is annoying to most folks. Just sayin'
> 

Well I dont think it is useless, and I think your reply to my test
post in the test group, and my subsequent reply, has added unnecessary
bytes and I find it annoying as well. Just saying!

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7wqdAACgkQOsEIjPprmuVB8AQAwKCqLPmNd/UNs1Spk2yWtz6K
AcmpEdQOSZrHqWun/TgtCng/8U5ZrRqS61lGNxgCpvb/++hG2imfmwm6GU4It0Xa
hhfsMXhKJc57dJLe4WIZXQPKazxrxNQlNNj7jEG3oMKPuonKCAYmY9/n5rUk9uib
x890o3qaQYbK3wLJ1CU=
=hdlu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/20/2011 3:29:22 PM
On 12/20/2011 7:07 AM Daniel submitted the following:
> Ed wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 11:43 PM Jay Garcia submitted the following:
>>> On 19.12.2011 14:46, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>>
>>>   --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>> On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>>>>> test test
>>> test
>>>
>>>> 0
>>>
>>> PGP signing of a new group post is useless and adds unnecessary bytes
>>> that is annoying to most folks. Just sayin'
>>>
>>
>> Appears to be automatically removed when replying.
> 
> I was looking at that, too, Ed.....normal sig delimiter is dash dash space on a
> line all to itself, but it seems the pgp signer has a sig delimiter of dash
> space dash dash space, which is also resulting in the sig being removed, at
> least in SM.
> 

And I can't find a public key for his signature anyhow - so what good is signing
a message?

gpg: requesting key FA6B9AE5 from hkp server pool.sks-keyservers.net
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: Total number processed: 0

gpg: requesting key FA6B9AE5 from hkp server subkeys.pgp.net
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: Total number processed: 0

gpg: requesting key FA6B9AE5 from hkp server pgp.mit.edu
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: Total number processed: 0

gpg: requesting key FA6B9AE5 from ldap server certserver.pgp.com
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: Total number processed: 0

Sorry Troy - A signature that can't be verified is not worth the extra bits in
the e-mail.

-- 
Ed

0
Ed
12/20/2011 5:44:13 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20/12/2011 17:44, Ed wrote:

> 
> Sorry Troy - A signature that can't be verified is not worth the
> extra bits in the e-mail.
> 

What are you talking about?

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7w16gACgkQOsEIjPprmuWufgP/XAYFzS/AX7B7LkrlBoTlHtM+
pJPMoOphHNDAlH9ohgt2H3Xc74mLfoSwrUa7iDOaSkGMhN0SRBmu9W3fm+99oZV/
Ya2aZ2ZUzPUMXD27HNsUDuSMganlXukgeBYvxKaYSreIYcwzcqwsQUhi7s4sfgKL
jiYOKv7ZdCiys1ayCTk=
=OTvn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/20/2011 6:44:57 PM
On 12/20/2011 1:44 PM Troy Maclure submitted the following:
> On 20/12/2011 17:44, Ed wrote:
> 
> 
>> Sorry Troy - A signature that can't be verified is not worth the
>> extra bits in the e-mail.
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> 0

I guess I should have included this with the info on not being able to get a
public key:

OpenPGP Security Info

Unverified signature

gpg command line and output:
C:\Program Files\GNU\GnuPG\pub\gpg.exe
gpg: Signature made 12/20/11 13:44:56 Eastern Standard Time using RSA key ID
FA6B9AE5
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key


-- 
Ed, W3BNR
http://JonesFarm.us/W3BNR
Powered by SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make
the unexpected become the expected?
0
W3BNR
12/20/2011 7:13:17 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20/12/2011 19:13, W3BNR wrote:
> 
> gpg command line and output: C:\Program
> Files\GNU\GnuPG\pub\gpg.exe gpg: Signature made 12/20/11 13:44:56
> Eastern Standard Time using RSA key ID FA6B9AE5 gpg: Can't check
> signature: No public key
> 
> 

Are you Ed as well, why are you so concerned with key?

I use this key for a specific purpose and I have not uploaded it to a
keyserver. why this would concern you, or anyone else for that matter,
I have no idea!

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7w3/MACgkQOsEIjPprmuXaHwQAk66+aTepd2XniRvmC/5uEHj+
ULQdpP+586JK+pYzKP7i1XT137TsTZDVfz/EbXrU9bLTOcB8YVX/tE5aI+6g5aa/
BcnNyNTXdxrBo16C263hkQRC602cPenFttjCfufI5GY/xVdAs4ISKkmdfWJaBA2E
3+TRpQCJbAg9t/RVnXo=
=zd/r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/20/2011 7:20:20 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20/12/2011 17:44, Ed wrote:
> 
> Sorry Troy - A signature that can't be verified is not worth the
> extra bits in the e-mail.
> 

Furthermore what do you mean it cant be verified, the keyserver is not
there to verify my key its there for you to find my public key.

The only thing responsible for verifying my key is you and your pgp
package.

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7w5Q8ACgkQOsEIjPprmuX+LgQAmm+u9GFk4TJ7cLRWVUxKphPA
LDW/C9cSKO6P/1GvFZzu1fGxnygkfmO9cNyCcZu61iwCRDANiEx4EQxcq4nQEK9Q
kJC5u99SG+xw7id8cvLlXPw/xf5nKhEkUIxFsWTsTpxxliKg6u0Q2BYmUr/R2O+o
XJ1kFJ/RGD+TPnxx6qU=
=uwte
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/20/2011 7:42:08 PM
On 12/20/2011 2:42 PM Troy Maclure submitted the following:
> On 20/12/2011 17:44, Ed wrote:
> 
>> Sorry Troy - A signature that can't be verified is not worth the
>> extra bits in the e-mail.
> 
> 
> Furthermore what do you mean it cant be verified, the keyserver is not
> there to verify my key its there for you to find my public key.
> 
> The only thing responsible for verifying my key is you and your pgp
> package.
> 
> 0

Realizing that you do not want your public key published, I fail to understand
why you sign e-mail that goes to others than those that have your keys.  Some
may be confused and others will complain that you are contributing to the
downfall of the internet by having senseless lines in you e-mail which will fill
up the bandpass of servers......, etc., etc., etc.

Nuff said -

-- 
Ed, W3BNR
http://JonesFarm.us/W3BNR
Powered by SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

"Sleep -- the most beautiful experience in life -- except drink."
                                       -W. C. Fields (1880-1946)
0
W3BNR
12/20/2011 8:51:15 PM
On 20.12.2011 12:44, Troy Maclure wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 20/12/2011 17:44, Ed wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Sorry Troy - A signature that can't be verified is not worth the
>> extra bits in the e-mail.
>> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> - -- 
> rsvp g, not hot, mail!
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
> Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6
> 
> iJwEAQECAAYFAk7w16gACgkQOsEIjPprmuWufgP/XAYFzS/AX7B7LkrlBoTlHtM+
> pJPMoOphHNDAlH9ohgt2H3Xc74mLfoSwrUa7iDOaSkGMhN0SRBmu9W3fm+99oZV/
> Ya2aZ2ZUzPUMXD27HNsUDuSMganlXukgeBYvxKaYSreIYcwzcqwsQUhi7s4sfgKL
> jiYOKv7ZdCiys1ayCTk=
> =OTvn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 0

What he's trying to say is that signing via PGP or any other type Hash
signature doesn't have any validity in posting in a public or otherwise
newsgroup venue.


-- 
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
0
Jay
12/21/2011 12:13:27 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20/12/2011 20:51, W3BNR wrote:
> 
> Realizing that you do not want your public key published, I fail to
> understand why you sign e-mail that goes to others than those that
> have your keys.

As I already said I'm doing some testing, that's why I'm only posting
in the test group with the subject line being "test the message" not
"please read my message, add my public key and then criticise me!"

> Some may be confused

Hopefully many will be confused enough to seek out personal encryption
software and use it to protect their data from the prying eyes of your
government and many other governments throughout the world!

> and others will complain that you are contributing to the downfall
> of the internet

1. Others may complain that my messages takes a wee bit more bandwidth
buts thats freedom of speech for you. Anyway how would they notice and
how could that possible be linked to the fall of the internet? please
explain in easy to understand language - not more than 100 words!

2. Your government is being linked to the fall of the internet with
your dmca, patriot act and, more recently, the anti piracy crap.

> by having senseless lines in you e-mail which will fill up the
> bandpass of servers......, etc., etc., etc.


That's a weird assertion to make!
 Ive been using computers for a long time, I remember the heady days
when networks sent data at a mind boggling 300 bps or 30 cps, at that
speed your signature would take ~9.5 seconds to download, depending on
what your random quote is!

Now I use a 20 mbps connection which translates to 2 million cps - My
whole original message is 1691 bytes, your message, that I'm replying
to, is 2869 bytes. That's 1.2 KB more than the original message, that
did not require any input whatsoever, and 2.8 KB of senseless data
added to the needless waste of capacity and bandwidth.

It seems like you post a lot in the news.mozilla.org news server so I
can imagine that you, personally, have wasted a massive amount of
bandwidth and capacity over time.

> 
> Nuff said -
> 

What does this mean?
1. You have made a statement and there is no possibility of a response?
3. You cant be bothered to list the other things that you have to say?

Without Prejudice

Troy Maclure


PS: I see from your sig that you are interested in amateur radio I'm
surprised that you do not know the difference between bandwidth and
bandpass.

For added points, can you tell me how many ms would be devoted to a
download of my message?

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7xOEEACgkQOsEIjPprmuV9mQP/TWgNFxHIUSY6W3+EWfZO6xcG
GgDaHcvOgRTdWucQ4tzP/totSVWMOwNOB0/x88oyfPSoauHt4JkpvPAD+rA99nwM
vepJqShJ2S1WJF9Bqw7JJmZEaRF6CLI+Dt3iVxxu88TLg7MMimBTwylJNQNNDN/5
7BZkfficzUVpPPcXM7o=
=UYkn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/21/2011 1:37:06 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21/12/2011 00:13, Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
> What he's trying to say is that signing via PGP or any other type
> Hash signature doesn't have any validity in posting in a public or
> otherwise newsgroup venue.
> 
> 

why does it not have any validity?
Please explain!

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7xOMgACgkQOsEIjPprmuXY3QP/QGH5TNksLkR3kM3f6uahGHVK
JPZ+o8wCYlCKUfBl5HF1rjPacxfSYNxYTYCZzqHEIcRAbyqIdoaDK+syGcCZyonC
mA4Z1q+ffagaE1zluasAgTQnh6A3zt4kMXWjEESvFpES/gsmPQES6PeB4oiKN/NC
BXI7bBFyHxdtCX7/n5o=
=aKHa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/21/2011 1:39:20 AM
On 20.12.2011 19:37, Troy Maclure wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> PS: I see from your sig that you are interested in amateur radio I'm
> surprised that you do not know the difference between bandwidth and
> bandpass.

Actually it's band-pass and if you stretch the definition a bit it could
be applied accordingly to this discussion. However, bandwidth usage is
much more appropriate. Either way it's a nit-pick. :-)

N5ZF

-- 
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
0
Jay
12/21/2011 12:13:00 PM
On 20.12.2011 19:39, Troy Maclure wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 21/12/2011 00:13, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> 
>> What he's trying to say is that signing via PGP or any other type
>> Hash signature doesn't have any validity in posting in a public or
>> otherwise newsgroup venue.
>> 
>> 
> 
> why does it not have any validity?
> Please explain!

Because signed or un-signed, the message is publicly viewable, key or no
key. There is no reason to sign a publicly viewable message posted to a
public access server, it's not the same as email.

-- 
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
0
Jay
12/21/2011 12:22:15 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21/12/2011 12:22, Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
> Because signed or un-signed, the message is publicly viewable, key
> or no key. There is no reason to sign a publicly viewable message
> posted to a public access server, it's not the same as email.
> 

I do not think you understand the difference between a signed message
and a encrypted message. Maybe once you have researched that it may
shed some light on why someone would sign a message!

NRN
- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yUP0ACgkQOsEIjPprmuVDKQP/Qg65VUNgZg8ic1yKwiU+ijss
qGFXlo4VNIs8vyeHJWHASgtbPrDYqyBEl7GEecFrO9ibplNg9GJeU4hVqyiXxDaz
EHDx6My4nMMoJFCp3uVosbzv0LEsLGGcsPDuLNNohlIYjNutnXhGbWsT8IIakQ+M
c9II4YRv0wJKW2X6uCU=
=Usjk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/21/2011 9:34:55 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21/12/2011 12:13, Jay Garcia wrote:
> Actually it's band-pass and if you stretch the definition a bit it
> could be applied accordingly to this discussion. However, bandwidth
> usage is much more appropriate.
> 

Whaaaa!?! You do not know the difference between a analog signal
bandpass filter and digital bandwidth!?!  are you for real!
one filters frequency the other is a measure of throughput!

> Either way it's a nit-pick. :-)
> 

nit-pick is that an american translation for trolling which is what
you did when you, and your call-sign friends, hijacked my test thread.

NRN and none wanted.

case closed

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yUxEACgkQOsEIjPprmuUVGQQApmg02fnCQgCBH2b2V9EXzHcW
CLAU+EtlaxaEjD96GxYRj4L0IvFdeDAKGjDTgTaUxetL6efWXeswKOtffILhOIWw
UByUwHvqdS3LwdS1zsIbXlbz2HoDbWK/d3HxaBCNnbfTDawukCSqWuymQlOHHevA
WldJWB4mFJ7iBApOqUE=
=YHPD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/21/2011 9:43:46 PM
Troy Maclure wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>  .....
> case closed
> 
> - --
> rsvp g, not hot, mail!
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
> Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6
> 
> iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yUxEACgkQOsEIjPprmuUVGQQApmg02fnCQgCBH2b2V9EXzHcW
> CLAU+EtlaxaEjD96GxYRj4L0IvFdeDAKGjDTgTaUxetL6efWXeswKOtffILhOIWw
> UByUwHvqdS3LwdS1zsIbXlbz2HoDbWK/d3HxaBCNnbfTDawukCSqWuymQlOHHevA
> WldJWB4mFJ7iBApOqUE=
> =YHPD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 0

Now that you've won the argument, perhaps you will reconsider posting 
your silly PGP goop to Usenet. Or at the very least, precede it with a 
valid sig delimiter of "dash-dash-space-newline" so it doesn't get 
*quoted*. Because you know that people who reply without trimming are 
going to just pass it right along,thereby decreasing its worth even more!

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high
0
Beauregard
12/21/2011 10:28:41 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig850CE6F908760AA403D34C17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
> test test
> 0

--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enig850CE6F908760AA403D34C17
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yaDQACgkQOsEIjPprmuVp9gP9EcKLk9NBNVYgCeDwFPtO+NC2
lwi/3qU4ZeVlbHl9o6uzFIjTvCyMQMrbIEmdtL7WAEWROnHlmfF0h3Av4MpnZ7rk
/sO5yUyqupq52hjLXJd1hDy34AEMdlbyi1PGS8n3fdQtisCAe+f/RHHIUWl2GR1G
op6JOkhBR+YuPJm2Jb0=
=PLx0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enig850CE6F908760AA403D34C17--
0
Troy
12/21/2011 11:13:51 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21/12/2011 23:13, Troy Maclure wrote:
> On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
>> test test 0
> 
test2

- -- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yaIQACgkQOsEIjPprmuXa0QP+MVIPENgIAGdhpWrisKOWQbhY
e0b365UsHvhT6hgbfqWyO3c/vvoct4hhp3EQJyFKgWzAaLRzTpOjzlqxia+wmhPa
8IJz4zu+kOb2dIrsVj56p2Q2T0R1vLZ4vZSYXKprc7cQ2gJ8wxFLYeeOs+UnZgcN
V0XJq3epCxiJQqGRN4c=
=3Sy1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
0
Troy
12/21/2011 11:15:18 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig428CFDABCA636BCB6DB31157
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
 boundary="------------050901020006090006030307"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050901020006090006030307
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 21/12/2011 23:15, Troy Maclure wrote:
> On 21/12/2011 23:13, Troy Maclure wrote:
>> On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>> test test 0
>=20
> test2
>=20
> 0
last test possible

--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!

--------------050901020006090006030307
Content-Type: application/pgp-keys;
 name="0xFA6B9AE5.asc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="0xFA6B9AE5.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6
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=3DP4eg
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
0

--------------050901020006090006030307--

--------------enig428CFDABCA636BCB6DB31157
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yab0ACgkQOsEIjPprmuX8JAQAqT19Q/0EJRSM5rXrjeuf4kwb
K/bHlY1jJppe6BKmlMyTm/by9oLAV3wQ6xOw/bqi9qbetOPsbJCrJ+RdAnelQnfH
+G4sFEUgcTzqIQQ4bKSbBqO+vhs+IGF8yjJBs70NQyZ+Xv8p4b+kraM4CczVJnEj
6OgA6pN2HgAaUjZHJyU=
=HRl0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enig428CFDABCA636BCB6DB31157--
0
Troy
12/21/2011 11:20:29 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig9BF90A457B94CC8E3AC91248
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 21/12/2011 23:20, Troy Maclure wrote:
> On 21/12/2011 23:15, Troy Maclure wrote:
>> On 21/12/2011 23:13, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>>> test test 0
>>
>> test2
>>
>> 0
> last test possible
>=20
test

--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enig9BF90A457B94CC8E3AC91248
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yaz4ACgkQOsEIjPprmuV8FgP/SD2Sj2UWbEZZA5k/FYhN0KwX
H/LJWyuIuzZKY8yomgfxga2YtxrbHmymwMrHvoXQI2zx1JfDVy7uFnWpiSzu3UZg
ybdaIGwCIxEQJj36FD2a01lQsdklFcVa8DoTizj5LCpZDqrzZlSTr6x1xHLXfren
6FR5cKa+q7s9M6uQKvc=
=F5Z2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enig9BF90A457B94CC8E3AC91248--
0
Troy
12/21/2011 11:26:54 PM
On 21.12.2011 15:34, Troy Maclure wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 21/12/2011 12:22, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> 
>> Because signed or un-signed, the message is publicly viewable, key
>> or no key. There is no reason to sign a publicly viewable message
>> posted to a public access server, it's not the same as email.
>> 
> 
> I do not think you understand the difference between a signed message
> and a encrypted message. Maybe once you have researched that it may
> shed some light on why someone would sign a message!
> 
> NRN
> - -- 
> rsvp g, not hot, mail!
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
> Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6
> 
> iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yUP0ACgkQOsEIjPprmuVDKQP/Qg65VUNgZg8ic1yKwiU+ijss
> qGFXlo4VNIs8vyeHJWHASgtbPrDYqyBEl7GEecFrO9ibplNg9GJeU4hVqyiXxDaz
> EHDx6My4nMMoJFCp3uVosbzv0LEsLGGcsPDuLNNohlIYjNutnXhGbWsT8IIakQ+M
> c9II4YRv0wJKW2X6uCU=
> =Usjk
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 0

I know exactly what the difference is and I stand by my conclusion(s).
Now, you tell ME why you think it necessary to PGP sign a news post and
what good it really does.

-- 
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
0
Jay
12/21/2011 11:37:17 PM
It happens that Troy Maclure formulated :
> On 21/12/2011 23:20, Troy Maclure wrote:
>> On 21/12/2011 23:15, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>> On 21/12/2011 23:13, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2011 21:32, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>> 
>>> test2
>>> 
>>> 0
>> last test possible
>> 
> test

Seems to work! ;-)


0
Test
12/21/2011 11:39:37 PM
On 21.12.2011 15:43, Troy Maclure wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> On 21/12/2011 12:13, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> Actually it's band-pass and if you stretch the definition a bit it
>> could be applied accordingly to this discussion. However, bandwidth
>> usage is much more appropriate.
>> 
> 
> Whaaaa!?! You do not know the difference between a analog signal
> bandpass filter and digital bandwidth!?!  are you for real!
> one filters frequency the other is a measure of throughput!
> 
>> Either way it's a nit-pick. :-)
>> 
> 
> nit-pick is that an american translation for trolling which is what
> you did when you, and your call-sign friends, hijacked my test thread.
> 
> NRN and none wanted.
> 
> case closed

Uh, I manufacture band-pass filters and use them daily.

Case closed is right.

-- 
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
0
Jay
12/21/2011 11:40:20 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigA40A1A0FF17811AAE1A6CCEC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 21/12/2011 23:39, Test User wrote:
>=20
> Seems to work! ;-)
>=20
Yeah but some people need to learn to quit while they are ahead
it would make look less like an idiot especially one who proposes
to be technically inclined


--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enigA40A1A0FF17811AAE1A6CCEC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yctwACgkQOsEIjPprmuVpxQP/W/j5H4ejw9XDV20So9HJ5hRN
EWDKzkE4YTW3NjyBy/I0OFbs7O0nx0uk7HdturKwkGlZAFLt7qRAi2pm5pxgf/GR
kZ1y14Xp0PbTb4qtYGX5JVxS3ezMYdUsmDY0ExCSkzXTz/GZTW/wj0tsG4A+szB8
sjSqW8g2d2l5NXs6FPg=
=F5ML
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enigA40A1A0FF17811AAE1A6CCEC--
0
Troy
12/21/2011 11:59:24 PM
On 21.12.2011 17:59, Troy Maclure wrote:


> On 21/12/2011 23:39, Test User wrote:
>> 
>> Seems to work! ;-)
>> 
> Yeah but some people need to learn to quit while they are ahead
> it would make look less like an idiot especially one who proposes
> to be technically inclined
> 
> 

Hmm, he who talks to himself should be in search of a good couch.
0
Old
12/22/2011 12:09:13 AM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig0BA0B8D7712C1408594F5D4F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 21/12/2011 22:28, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

>=20
> perhaps you will reconsider posting=20
> your silly PGP goop to Usenet.

And wee have a new contender; shagnasty by name, writenasty by nature.
I kid, maybe you should read up about pgp as well. just sayin'


> Or at the very least, precede it with a
> valid sig delimiter of "dash-dash-space-newline" so it doesn't get
> *quoted*.

I concur, sorry about the sig problem that was part of my testing and
was giving me a headache along with being sidetracked by others...

> Because you know that people who reply without trimming are
> going to just pass it right along,thereby decreasing its worth even mor=
e!
>

It should be fixed now, just a silly mistake on my part.

"Wink at small faults - your own are muckle."


--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enig0BA0B8D7712C1408594F5D4F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7ydbEACgkQOsEIjPprmuWoKAQAxH57mb34oI7FT91t9A3etEhI
AO2+2c8ZgO2TJQ0dC7kI0HOasBwwrEwotBEcUQx3eCGX62eCwX6+YV85KVniH0cB
eExVoOlDi9d4C9CpXUK0wJidpo9zSH6RO0HgOUBekSgoqO7eZvpEM2FiCPki6/99
mefTgY5gvK4KvKO8nJg=
=kHiX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enig0BA0B8D7712C1408594F5D4F--
0
Troy
12/22/2011 12:11:29 AM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig58130A9DB0887A23DC092BB8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 22/12/2011 00:09, Old Joe wrote:
>
> Hmm, he who talks to himself should be in search of a good couch.

Behold, from the ether of emptiness comes old joe with an observance
from the wisdom of the ages. A good couch, you say old joe, I'm sorry,
I'm a simple man from a simple country far far away* from you just what
would a good couch do for me? as at the moment I *have* quite a good
couch, well its certainly comfy, very comfy, actually I sometimes fall
asleep on couch and have blissful dreams of calm and serenity so I look
forward to what magical abilities you couch possesses.


--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enig58130A9DB0887A23DC092BB8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yeFkACgkQOsEIjPprmuWG+AP/cCMYyaQSFwiedUI4wwCaAssr
8aai/qKKfLeUZpJEAE859g8omkeR/PjORfaLNo/gTqO0XVF4B4XPcwjjODWenG7Z
/4GzJ4ptIs/v8lGgNMMRaOVXZ2hD+K0EjhbCw7jj2Za50oGEfljYpSqEE0Zm/M9Y
f/whSIa5r7RfH5i9sHQ=
=YAH8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enig58130A9DB0887A23DC092BB8--
0
Troy
12/22/2011 12:22:49 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/21/2011 4:34 PM Troy Maclure submitted the following:
> On 21/12/2011 12:22, Jay Garcia wrote:
> 
>> Because signed or un-signed, the message is publicly viewable, key or no
>> key. There is no reason to sign a publicly viewable message posted to a
>> public access server, it's not the same as email.
> 
> 
> I do not think you understand the difference between a signed message and a
> encrypted message. Maybe once you have researched that it may shed some
> light on why someone would sign a message!
> 
> NRN 0

Let me see.  An encrypted message should only be visible by the sender and the
receiver both of which would use the keys they developed when using PGP or
GnuPG.   A signed message only verifies that the user can be verified using
information from his public key in one of the public key servers and that the
message has NOT been altered.

Since your signature decodes to:

OpenPGP Security Info
Unverified signature
gpg command line and output:
C:\Program Files\GNU\GnuPG\pub\gpg.exe
gpg: Signature made 12/21/11 16:34:53 Eastern Standard Time using RSA key ID
FA6B9AE5
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key


we have no idea who you are or if your message has been changed in transmission.

Knowing better, I have decided to sign this message.  My signature should be
decipherable whereas yours is not.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO8n3EAAoJEDKlHyBrmGSzX+UIAJcAu1WtZJFvfSZPhGz/r5za
mKAcxxIFRXbX8FUjvTBtLs5baSzVcQtaobFc3AAuFaAVmZirfhglfS92e3R7rJED
LY1MVfkLBgGrr6E9F1enQD1yxp5EpWaJpJGkPjK1uta8dn9WNndA1a1bFaHFjra7
pVNmiV3AmDb1oHDTdTlmeCA1Tsi9RG+TPTjEzjUELlsqZvufCS/NIZ4LUo7HVbZ8
R/VsyQC3CAsRvmJyD51Q8lVaVfFqBheNZCtiuMM0TrNeBjCffOUAVjI4KSxESWz4
FKQgD6CfqGke4dgsWltCUYapuuXgQNCu42Esy6NQMuqK8eeIZDBXibekml8Ii2M=
=x2yD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Ed
12/22/2011 12:45:58 AM
Troy Maclure wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> perhaps you will reconsider posting
>> your silly PGP goop to Usenet.
> 
> And wee have a new contender; shagnasty by name, writenasty by nature. I
> kid, maybe you should read up about pgp as well. just sayin'

Not new, and I know all about PGP. I also know of its lack of worth in 
Usenet, especially when you have no public key. There's nothing nasty 
about my writing.
 
>> Or at the very least, precede it with a valid sig delimiter of
>> "dash-dash-space-newline" so it doesn't get *quoted*.
> 
> I concur, sorry about the sig problem that was part of my testing and
> was giving me a headache along with being sidetracked by others...
> 
>> Because you know that people who reply without trimming are going to
>> just pass it right along,thereby decreasing its worth even more!
>
> It should be fixed now, just a silly mistake on my part.

Thanks for fixing it.

And now that your PGP signature is bounded correctly by "-- ", this is 
how my newsreader interprets it, showing the following after the sig 
delimiter:


rsvp g, not hot, mail!

Attachment not shown: MIME type application/pgp-signature; filename 
signature.asc


-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high
0
Beauregard
12/22/2011 12:55:57 AM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig68C02C7B066DD5BADF62B513
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 22/12/2011 00:55, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Not new,
>
I did not suggest that you where new to the internet.

> and I know all about PGP.
>
well done.

> I also know of its lack of worth in=20
> Usenet
Interesting, without references though.

> especially when you have no public key.
>
I'm sure I have done that answer to death, if you care to read.

> There's nothing nasty=20
> about my writing.
>
touch=C3=A9.

>=20
> Thanks for fixing it.
>=20
> And now that your PGP signature is bounded correctly by "-- ", this is =

> how my newsreader interprets it, showing the following after the sig=20
> delimiter:
>=20
>=20
> rsvp g, not hot, mail!
>=20
> Attachment not shown: MIME type application/pgp-signature; filename
> signature.asc
>=20

I'm not sure what your including here, are you still attacking me or
showing me relevant information?!?


--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enig68C02C7B066DD5BADF62B513
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yg3gACgkQOsEIjPprmuVkJwP+ITkz6K+/8A1OkOhKOgTTVs4Q
Y4XJBdwAtM/VFLjcv8EZTHdelK5LS3D6mwpGABXb+RtAVP0A56mYGGbgnE1DK942
eRWHFpp0LE5wfXnocM+xevN2FHtCPFEKmTeTvu4W/fdP2F2l54gSsoKSZCH7EPln
tt3hpriXH+hvZcNOOMM=
=JjBh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enig68C02C7B066DD5BADF62B513--
0
Troy
12/22/2011 1:10:16 AM
Troy Maclure wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> [...]
>> Thanks for fixing it.
>> 
>> And now that your PGP signature is bounded correctly by "-- ", this is
>> how my newsreader interprets it, showing the following after the sig
>> delimiter:
>> 
>> 
>> rsvp g, not hot, mail!
>> 
>> Attachment not shown: MIME type application/pgp-signature; filename
>> signature.asc
>> 
>> 
> I'm not sure what your including here, are you still attacking me or
> showing me relevant information?!?

Attacking? Not at all, never was. And yes, I was showing you the result 
in my newsreader of your including a proper sig delimiter, nothing more 
than that.

Don't jump so fast!

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high
0
Beauregard
12/22/2011 1:18:06 AM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig27D2CCD9F44CFABA5083B89E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
test group.

They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!

Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?

--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enig27D2CCD9F44CFABA5083B89E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yhbsACgkQOsEIjPprmuUHdQP/c7CFZ8w8uGLVTijs3J5WTeO1
+OE3qwDljeRaECCw+iaC6hYvWmhRSRmod6pC8a5JjePDNDsIchn9BrxosWytw4ZJ
o317Uyk1lMgwJrAe6PcvxGK4sWkYMquKxO6ACfO3O77f7Wj704XkNsoRDVtr4xj2
yURsudnmMjxBZwSoZDA=
=OsEl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enig27D2CCD9F44CFABA5083B89E--
0
Troy
12/22/2011 1:19:55 AM
Troy Maclure wrote:
[cross-post noted]

> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
> test group.
> 
> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
> 
> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?

Heh, you're very sensitive and thin-skinned if you think you were 
"attacked" and "harassed."  (Well, maybe just a little bit of 
harassment ... certainly not ill-natured.)

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high
0
Beauregard
12/22/2011 1:38:55 AM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig8C5006D1D8FAA46511B485D2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 22/12/2011 00:45, Ed wrote:
>
> Let me see.  An encrypted message should only be visible by the sender =
and the
> receiver both of which would use the keys they developed when using PGP=
 or
> GnuPG.   A signed message only verifies that the user can be verified u=
sing
> information from his public key in one of the public key servers and th=
at the
> message has NOT been altered.

You have been researching, well done.
Yes that would be the basic premise of using pgp to sign a message, and
thanks for sharing the fruits of your labour here.

>=20
> Since your signature decodes to:
>=20
> OpenPGP Security Info
> Unverified signature
> gpg command line and output:
> C:\Program Files\GNU\GnuPG\pub\gpg.exe
> gpg: Signature made 12/21/11 16:34:53 Eastern Standard Time using RSA k=
ey ID
> FA6B9AE5
> gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
>=20
>=20
> we have no idea who you are or if your message has been changed in tran=
smission.
>=20
1. As I already iterated I have not uploaded my public key to a keyserver=

2. I do not care that you can not verify my public key on a keyserver!
3. If I wanted you to verify my sig i would give you my public key!
4. I do not want you to verify my messages!
5. Stop trying to look for my public key - its not there!

> Knowing better,
>
Another assertion, however I seriously doubt this one!

> I have decided to sign this message.
>
Keep up the good work.

>  My signature should be
> decipherable whereas yours is not.
>
Eh! have you seen your pgp signature, its not decipherable at least not
with my eyes, and mines looks like yours - irony at a basic level.

In conclusion all your questions have been answered and you are
needlessly adding to the hated capacity and bandpassy, I mean bandwidth
and as I already said to your friend.

*NRN*


--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enig8C5006D1D8FAA46511B485D2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7yjL0ACgkQOsEIjPprmuWA4AQAxI7fLFvIspY6kBMLGY6sq1Uk
HcF93bTuWkWAEr3BwpSUech4MPXrIb+fU2fYc5USlFk9vKmki5iFkgKaEavOKL68
Fo4QxSGRm2F5nX8E4GPj4YELGogA54EN5aBViDGvKePPcz/kyE8gpwBlj/kzSYbx
W+sHvrmIi8tScfKHU4A=
=2UQQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enig8C5006D1D8FAA46511B485D2--
0
Troy
12/22/2011 1:49:49 AM
Troy Maclure has written on 12/21/2011 8:19 PM:
> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
> test group.
> 
> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
> 
> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
> 

You can be sure that those people are going to get coal in their
Christmas stockings!

Does your DELETE key work?
0
Cy
12/22/2011 1:57:16 AM
On 22/12/2011 01:57, Cy Burnot wrote:
> Troy Maclure has written on 12/21/2011 8:19 PM:
>> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
>> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
>> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
>> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
>> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
>> test group.
>>
>> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>>
>> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
>>
> 
> You can be sure that those people are going to get coal in their
> Christmas stockings!
> 
> Does your DELETE key work?

Thanks for the support.

-- 
rsvp g, not hot, mail!
0
Troy
12/22/2011 2:01:08 AM
On 12/21/2011 7:19 PM, Troy Maclure wrote:
> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
> test group.
>
> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>
> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
>

Gee, if you can't test in the test group, where CAN you test.

0
Ron
12/22/2011 2:02:04 AM
On 12/21/11 2:22 PM, Troy Maclure wrote:
> On 22/12/2011 00:09, Old Joe wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, he who talks to himself should be in search of a good couch.
>
> Behold, from the ether of emptiness comes old joe with an observance
> from the wisdom of the ages. A good couch, you say old joe, I'm sorry,
> I'm a simple man from a simple country far far away* from you just what
> would a good couch do for me? as at the moment I *have* quite a good
> couch, well its certainly comfy, very comfy, actually I sometimes fall
> asleep on couch and have blissful dreams of calm and serenity so I look
> forward to what magical abilities you couch possesses.
>
>
if you're driving drunk, park now
0
raf
12/22/2011 2:48:31 AM
Troy Maclure has written on 12/21/2011 9:01 PM:
> On 22/12/2011 01:57, Cy Burnot wrote:
>> Troy Maclure has written on 12/21/2011 8:19 PM:
>>> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
>>> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
>>> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
>>> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
>>> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
>>> test group.
>>>
>>> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>>>
>>> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
>>>
>> 
>> You can be sure that those people are going to get coal in their
>> Christmas stockings!
>> 
>> Does your DELETE key work?
> 
> Thanks for the support.

You're pretty testy (no pun intended). Perhaps I have this wrong, but
when a person posts to a test newsgroup, my understanding is that he can
get the results of the test by seeing what actually got posted, and that
the responses of other people are irrelevant. That is why I asked about
your DELETE key. Rather than get into an argument that has nothing to do
with your test, just delete what others are saying. You'll live longer.
Trust me.
0
Cy
12/22/2011 7:40:32 AM
Beauregard T. Shagnasty has written on 12/21/2011 8:38 PM:
> Troy Maclure wrote:
> [cross-post noted]
> 
>> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
>> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
>> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
>> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
>> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
>> test group.
>> 
>> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>> 
>> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
> 
> Heh, you're very sensitive and thin-skinned if you think you were 
> "attacked" and "harassed."  (Well, maybe just a little bit of 
> harassment ... certainly not ill-natured.)

Why does anyone respond to someone's test message in the first place (if
it a response is not requested)?
0
Cy
12/22/2011 7:41:33 AM
On 12/22/2011 1:41 AM, Cy Burnot wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty has written on 12/21/2011 8:38 PM:
>> Troy Maclure wrote:
>> [cross-post noted]
>>
>>> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
>>> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
>>> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
>>> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
>>> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
>>> test group.
>>>
>>> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>>>
>>> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
>>
>> Heh, you're very sensitive and thin-skinned if you think you were
>> "attacked" and "harassed."  (Well, maybe just a little bit of
>> harassment ... certainly not ill-natured.)
>
> Why does anyone respond to someone's test message in the first place (if
> it a response is not requested)?

Responses from others verify that the post is visible to others.  I 
useful data point.

0
Ron
12/22/2011 8:12:51 AM
Cy Burnot wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty has written on 12/21/2011 8:38 PM:
>> Troy Maclure wrote:
>> [cross-post noted]
>>
>>> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
>>> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
>>> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
>>> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
>>> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
>>> test group.
>>>
>>> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>>>
>>> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
>>
>> Heh, you're very sensitive and thin-skinned if you think you were
>> "attacked" and "harassed."  (Well, maybe just a little bit of
>> harassment ... certainly not ill-natured.)
>
> Why does anyone respond to someone's test message in the first place (if
> it a response is not requested)?
To make sure the connecton works both ways.

-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net        mailto:pjones1@kimbanet.com
0
PhillipJones
12/22/2011 5:02:58 PM
posted to .general & .test, f/ups to .general

Troy Maclure wrote:

> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>
> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?

I don't have any problem with your or anyone's test messages.

I have definite feelings about/against using clear signing in regular 
general^1 usenet groups or regular general specialty/private newsgroups 
such as the moz groups.

As a general rule, the readers of a general group are not holding the 
public key of any such signers, so the clear signing's purpose is not 
only 'lost' on the entire group, but in addition it is 'offensive' in 
that it is ugly and 'wastes space' and so then the clearsigning is bad 
netiquette.

Generally the sequence of events that leads to this conflict between 
signers and everyone else is that someone discovers the power of public 
key crypto to perform a number of useful functions and becomes enamored 
with the technology and the numerous tools available to integrate the 
crypto tech into their mailnews agent.

Once they've made these discoveries, they are anxious to introduce it to 
others and so they begin posting clearsigned messages 'all over the 
place', often using various justifications for why clearsigned messages 
'should' be posted into general groups.

I have no problem with clearsigning in test groups or in specific groups 
one of whose purposes is that of posting and exchanging clearsigned 
messages.


^1 'general' groups in this context is a group whose purpose is 
something other than discussing or solving issues with pgp/gpg 
signing/encrypting


-- 
Mike Easter
0
Mike
12/22/2011 5:07:10 PM
Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 1:41 AM, Cy Burnot wrote:
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty has written on 12/21/2011 8:38 PM:
>>> Troy Maclure wrote:
>>> [cross-post noted]
>>>
>>>> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
>>>> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are
>>>> concerened
>>>> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
>>>> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
>>>> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
>>>> test group.
>>>>
>>>> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
>>>
>>> Heh, you're very sensitive and thin-skinned if you think you were
>>> "attacked" and "harassed." (Well, maybe just a little bit of
>>> harassment ... certainly not ill-natured.)
>>
>> Why does anyone respond to someone's test message in the first place (if
>> it a response is not requested)?
>
> Responses from others verify that the post is visible to others. I
> useful data point.
>
I no one responds how does he person knows other people actually saw the 
test.
You can send a test o a given server and its not sending to the people 
for them to view. Its possible the person can see his own post and no 
one else has seen it. ersver can screw up in a vast number of ways. Also 
connections can go bad several different ways as well.

-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net        mailto:pjones1@kimbanet.com
0
PhillipJones
12/22/2011 5:08:55 PM
Ron Hunter has written on 12/22/2011 3:12 AM:
> On 12/22/2011 1:41 AM, Cy Burnot wrote:
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty has written on 12/21/2011 8:38 PM:
>>> Troy Maclure wrote:
>>> [cross-post noted]
>>>
>>>> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
>>>> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are concerened
>>>> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
>>>> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
>>>> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in the
>>>> test group.
>>>>
>>>> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
>>>
>>> Heh, you're very sensitive and thin-skinned if you think you were
>>> "attacked" and "harassed."  (Well, maybe just a little bit of
>>> harassment ... certainly not ill-natured.)
>>
>> Why does anyone respond to someone's test message in the first place (if
>> it a response is not requested)?
> 
> Responses from others verify that the post is visible to others.  I 
> useful data point.

Wouldn't that person write in his test message, "If you see this, please
respond"?

Most of the responses I read were about his signature and its contents.
People who don't have enough to do??
0
Cy
12/22/2011 6:11:30 PM
PhillipJones has written on 12/22/2011 12:02 PM:
> Cy Burnot wrote:

<snip>

>> Why does anyone respond to someone's test message in the first place (if
>> it a response is not requested)?

> To make sure the connecton works both ways.

I'm not following that. If I post a message and then I can download what
I posted, isn't that a sign of a successful two-way connection?

0
Cy
12/22/2011 6:13:04 PM
PhillipJones wrote:

> I no one responds how does he person knows other people actually saw the
> test.
> You can send a test o a given server and its not sending to the people
> for them to view. Its possible the person can see his own post and no
> one else has seen it. ersver can screw up in a vast number of ways. Also
> connections can go bad several different ways as well.

Phillip, are you celebrating the holidays early? Been in the eggnog?  :-)

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high
0
Beauregard
12/22/2011 9:23:10 PM
Cy Burnot wrote:
> PhillipJones has written on 12/22/2011 12:02 PM:
>> Cy Burnot wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Why does anyone respond to someone's test message in the first place (if
>>> it a response is not requested)?
>
>> To make sure the connecton works both ways.
>
> I'm not following that. If I post a message and then I can download what
> I posted, isn't that a sign of a successful two-way connection?
>
Not necessarily although You can see your post sometimes you are the 
only one that can. I've run into that before.

-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net        mailto:pjones1@kimbanet.com
0
PhillipJones
12/23/2011 1:00:50 AM
PhillipJones has written on 12/22/2011 8:00 PM:
> Cy Burnot wrote:
>> PhillipJones has written on 12/22/2011 12:02 PM:
>>> Cy Burnot wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Why does anyone respond to someone's test message in the first place (if
>>>> it a response is not requested)?
>>
>>> To make sure the connecton works both ways.
>>
>> I'm not following that. If I post a message and then I can download what
>> I posted, isn't that a sign of a successful two-way connection?
>>
> Not necessarily although You can see your post sometimes you are the 
> only one that can. I've run into that before.

If I were concerned about that, I think I'd include a message asking for
a response!
0
Cy
12/23/2011 1:02:56 AM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigF0748DC54A1F9E98F6E7289D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 21/12/2011 23:40, Jay Garcia wrote:
>=20
> Uh, I manufacture band-pass filters and use them daily.
>=20
> Case closed is right.
>=20

Uh huh, Ironically, I manage filters as well, Uh Huh, except I call
mines killfiles.

--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enigF0748DC54A1F9E98F6E7289D
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk7z6JYACgkQOsEIjPprmuXLTwP7BTnyh6QeINpH01JWVvfrKc5M
lPvfHr+/u3ZghKZMBYw+QrxNij75MnsG3kBoHcsThe5mnTKVzteqp+a6SJEVe7EY
7ArRkSDN0lIMOWbH9qSEw+CrziW/skBfAmQIDv+VQIrsiX3gjskAUiql9Bc4HsSm
TLwudC3oCrCqa9rCpyk=
=9Zzs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enigF0748DC54A1F9E98F6E7289D--
0
Troy
12/23/2011 2:33:54 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 21/12/11 12:22, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 20.12.2011 19:39, Troy Maclure wrote:
> 
> --- Original Message ---
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On 21/12/2011 00:13, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> 
>>> What he's trying to say is that signing via PGP or any other
>>> type Hash signature doesn't have any validity in posting in a
>>> public or otherwise newsgroup venue.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> why does it not have any validity? Please explain!
> 
> Because signed or un-signed, the message is publicly viewable, key
> or no key. There is no reason to sign a publicly viewable message
> posted to a public access server, it's not the same as email.
> 

Yes there is. To prove who you are. Since on-line writings are subject
to the same Laws as anywhere else, it's not hard to imagine a
situation where proving your identity beyond doubt can be of major
importance.

- -- 
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
Dyslexia lures, KO!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJO9HFLAAoJEHK0TX9bVQu/R6YH/jMPA6EYuqrbKLATLZIxETsa
ZpSpXz0VhfJxw8trQTt3G49Mxnufm0dugQFDIDJYwc4WQw4K1zFFBFTeG8GRZZH0
iSRlmMkDjhN1MIrikoQFS8FjULDrd3e6ZG/LukO9SNquoqxr6NOsi538rX8mAzNJ
8xVSLKAXh30VnM/IomENx32uf/hWl8VmUx6KMnKcFz02NA3I7qyxr+MPZ1GQ1A+v
Srs2r+BO957hy7CGSdFKHNTUDRylNTbPf+q4fQudP5eY3+tQ7mBdgcfopDUy6tII
YD8dVpnc3tKRTrN95AguTyTY7sdq9dm/vglaiGs/kmoYFVSwSDBS0IbQUzsmd4s=
=YjzF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Bob
12/23/2011 12:17:28 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 20/12/11 19:20, Troy Maclure wrote:
> On 20/12/2011 19:13, W3BNR wrote:
> 
>> gpg command line and output: C:\Program 
>> Files\GNU\GnuPG\pub\gpg.exe gpg: Signature made 12/20/11
>> 13:44:56 Eastern Standard Time using RSA key ID FA6B9AE5 gpg:
>> Can't check signature: No public key
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Ed as well, why are you so concerned with key?
> 
> I use this key for a specific purpose and I have not uploaded it to
> a keyserver. why this would concern you, or anyone else for that
> matter, I have no idea!
> 
> 0

It's truly amazing! You post a message in a test area, and get told
you don't know what you are doing by someone who knows nothing about
the purposes of cryptology!

Mind you, if you really want to get attacked, try posting something
slightly critical of Mozilla in a support echo :-)

Regards,

Bob



- -- 
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have
learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald
Reagan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJO9HP3AAoJEHK0TX9bVQu/qVEH/1PexYGnRqULwLnHl/5Znjyr
W4cXgXhOXkfAZYL1Sx92wS6Q1sdvME54mL+1pHETmwe2CbQBiQ/2bg6BHkTspTu4
t73shLI95A1gMI72s1Fqs26XgxMutRHfJvntFnyZlGzxfHc64xHrbGgmYYLMjDwM
3NT0VT5jW6P+HzeAImt1ryP6LA/zuFpWKV5smYzSUe5VlXkTlZNaT84aNTqIGOqd
tNxSzNAEn4qHAuWCLTYqTCGHF9S3/yyK4qq+NkzYxLQqPIwDIsgxA6cRWahVKmPD
GH9CW6bZk2D0OBIDThGl4VUsPAwAL0G3d49u5nKBhR06v9JRsGtUoIx8yw7hoAA=
=2AuD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Bob
12/23/2011 12:28:43 PM
On 23.12.2011 06:17, Bob Henson wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> On 21/12/11 12:22, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 20.12.2011 19:39, Troy Maclure wrote:
>> 
>> --- Original Message ---
>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>> 
>>> On 21/12/2011 00:13, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> What he's trying to say is that signing via PGP or any other
>>>> type Hash signature doesn't have any validity in posting in a
>>>> public or otherwise newsgroup venue.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> why does it not have any validity? Please explain!
>> 
>> Because signed or un-signed, the message is publicly viewable, key
>> or no key. There is no reason to sign a publicly viewable message
>> posted to a public access server, it's not the same as email.
>> 
> 
> Yes there is. To prove who you are. Since on-line writings are subject
> to the same Laws as anywhere else, it's not hard to imagine a
> situation where proving your identity beyond doubt can be of major
> importance.

Ok, I don't believe you're Bob Henson.

-- 
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
0
Jay
12/23/2011 1:47:53 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 23/12/2011 1:47 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 23.12.2011 06:17, Bob Henson wrote:
> 
> --- Original Message ---
> 
>> On 21/12/11 12:22, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 20.12.2011 19:39, Troy Maclure wrote:
>>> 
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>> 
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>>> 
>>>> On 21/12/2011 00:13, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> What he's trying to say is that signing via PGP or any
>>>>> other type Hash signature doesn't have any validity in
>>>>> posting in a public or otherwise newsgroup venue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> why does it not have any validity? Please explain!
>>> 
>>> Because signed or un-signed, the message is publicly viewable,
>>> key or no key. There is no reason to sign a publicly viewable
>>> message posted to a public access server, it's not the same as
>>> email.
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes there is. To prove who you are. Since on-line writings are
>> subject to the same Laws as anywhere else, it's not hard to
>> imagine a situation where proving your identity beyond doubt can
>> be of major importance.
> 
> Ok, I don't believe you're Bob Henson.
> 

If you'd like to pop across to Tetbury, bringing your passport and
other photo-identification, I'll sign your key, you can sign mine, and
then you will be able to confirm the veracity of my messages beyond
any doubt whatever. I will also sign this one, and then (even without
any key-signings) you will know that at least this message came from
the same person as the last message - you will, of course, know that
identity theft is common in newsgroups. Additionally, if you want to
write to me privately you now can encrypt your message to me with a
security that even the Pentagon can't breach. You could (but you
shouldn't - it isn't good enough evidence) almost sign my key without
meeting me, were I to copy your last private e-mail to me back to you
as proof of who I am - it's probably in my archives somewhere.

- -- 
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. � Mark Twain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJO9I32AAoJEHK0TX9bVQu/im8IALIgotv0rvI7HFaH3Mkvwp/f
BBrKtS9Jk6CqVD0+m+GgwHidwaWGcX6iyNY0IFax5PUACDZEz9HBNi091rC8VgQx
o7q9j105E6br1KxoUAUQkBC1FffFal6lxDNvpgs/a1/sPw69iR0Ix2LvvgFD///T
Z7DcpPzK/Tr+Q64b3hFU4mKdH21wJEEb/j8JragZ0vz465x7Sw6ZyIb2T+Ze2a0z
LgAI4vx6RxVcVjSbUTaNOmeR/2Bz6/Gs0Z8ZUUKM7aYlgAX/Q0BIqiSCaaJCqkcH
+op0EVBOjZU5/ZyIs50v8k4B6SWnoaC16775OMxqu0F1I26p0coIrZZaiIizCaY=
=TO4U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Bob
12/23/2011 2:19:36 PM
On 23.12.2011 08:19, Bob Henson wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

>> --- Original Message ---
>> Ok, I don't believe you're Bob Henson.
>> 
> 
> If you'd like to pop across to Tetbury, bringing your passport and
> other photo-identification, I'll sign your key, you can sign mine, and
> then you will be able to confirm the veracity of my messages beyond
> any doubt whatever. I will also sign this one, and then (even without
> any key-signings) you will know that at least this message came from
> the same person as the last message - you will, of course, know that
> identity theft is common in newsgroups. Additionally, if you want to
> write to me privately you now can encrypt your message to me with a
> security that even the Pentagon can't breach. You could (but you
> shouldn't - it isn't good enough evidence) almost sign my key without
> meeting me, were I to copy your last private e-mail to me back to you
> as proof of who I am - it's probably in my archives somewhere.
> 
> - -- 
> Bob
> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Exactly the point I'm trying to make, why is it necessary to prove who
you are when posting in these support groups. For all intents and
purposes it's the message that counts and the level of support rendered,
not who the support giver is. Are Beauregard Shagnasty's informed
replies less credible because he chooses an alias rather than a real
name? How about Sailfish? and on and on ... One of most revered of all
Linux gurus used to post on our secnews server, his alias was TenThumbs
but nobody knew his real name except for me but never revealed it.


-- 
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
0
Jay
12/23/2011 2:31:45 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig1477C99172D68227AB79EE23
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 23/12/2011 14:31, Jay Garcia wrote:
> nothing of consequence
>=20

Did you actually read what Bob Henson wrote?

--=20
rsvp g, not hot, mail!


--------------enig1477C99172D68227AB79EE23
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.7.6

iJwEAQECAAYFAk705FoACgkQOsEIjPprmuU5TAP7BQu3yImWShSHfVZKK/W+XFVS
5j+0uu5yzICwltWKSMvH09QVOqCYfUrghSLHXj0MCBputhtpnNhqE8p3EVaKu+u6
LeucaNdn0ang4GPdeRkwTw4aUKe0wYIOKYQbuLSjq96e8n/GZ9Vz064qg7zOk7/k
lNd7JEaTkKWGA5d6eg4=
=BtAx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0

--------------enig1477C99172D68227AB79EE23--
0
Troy
12/23/2011 8:28:05 PM
On 11-12-23 3:28 PM, Troy Maclure wrote:
> On 23/12/2011 14:31, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> nothing of consequence
>>
>
> Did you actually read what Bob Henson wrote?

Guys, lets keep the chitchat out of this test newsgroup, thanks. :)

-- 
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
0
Chris
12/24/2011 12:31:59 AM
Bob Henson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 20/12/11 19:20, Troy Maclure wrote:
>> On 20/12/2011 19:13, W3BNR wrote:
>>
>>> gpg command line and output: C:\Program
>>> Files\GNU\GnuPG\pub\gpg.exe gpg: Signature made 12/20/11
>>> 13:44:56 Eastern Standard Time using RSA key ID FA6B9AE5 gpg:
>>> Can't check signature: No public key
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you Ed as well, why are you so concerned with key?
>>
>> I use this key for a specific purpose and I have not uploaded it to
>> a keyserver. why this would concern you, or anyone else for that
>> matter, I have no idea!
>>
>> 0
>
> It's truly amazing! You post a message in a test area, and get told
> you don't know what you are doing by someone who knows nothing about
> the purposes of cryptology!
>
> Mind you, if you really want to get attacked, try posting something
> slightly critical of Mozilla in a support echo :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> - --
> Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK
> It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have
> learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald
> Reagan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJO9HP3AAoJEHK0TX9bVQu/qVEH/1PexYGnRqULwLnHl/5Znjyr
> W4cXgXhOXkfAZYL1Sx92wS6Q1sdvME54mL+1pHETmwe2CbQBiQ/2bg6BHkTspTu4
> t73shLI95A1gMI72s1Fqs26XgxMutRHfJvntFnyZlGzxfHc64xHrbGgmYYLMjDwM
> 3NT0VT5jW6P+HzeAImt1ryP6LA/zuFpWKV5smYzSUe5VlXkTlZNaT84aNTqIGOqd
> tNxSzNAEn4qHAuWCLTYqTCGHF9S3/yyK4qq+NkzYxLQqPIwDIsgxA6cRWahVKmPD
> GH9CW6bZk2D0OBIDThGl4VUsPAwAL0G3d49u5nKBhR06v9JRsGtUoIx8yw7hoAA=
> =2AuD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bob, you may have noticed that Troy has done something to his set-up so 
that the key data is no longer displaying in his sig block....the same 
sort of key data which you are still displaying!!!

-- 
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours, and may 2012 be 
better than 2011.

Daniel
0
Daniel
12/24/2011 11:25:40 AM
PhillipJones wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 12/22/2011 1:41 AM, Cy Burnot wrote:
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty has written on 12/21/2011 8:38 PM:
>>>> Troy Maclure wrote:
>>>> [cross-post noted]
>>>>
>>>>> I have been posting some test messages in the mozilla.test group for a
>>>>> couple of days now. The messages that I have been posting are
>>>>> concerened
>>>>> with tests that i have being doing. Nothing wrong with that you would
>>>>> expect. Well I have several different people attacking my test threads
>>>>> now, even though I have explained that i'm just testing messages in
>>>>> the
>>>>> test group.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are harrassing me for testing and using PGP, pretty good privacy!
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone else have a problem with my test messages?
>>>>
>>>> Heh, you're very sensitive and thin-skinned if you think you were
>>>> "attacked" and "harassed." (Well, maybe just a little bit of
>>>> harassment ... certainly not ill-natured.)
>>>
>>> Why does anyone respond to someone's test message in the first place (if
>>> it a response is not requested)?
>>
>> Responses from others verify that the post is visible to others. I
>> useful data point.
>>
> I no one responds how does he person knows other people actually saw the
> test.
> You can send a test o a given server and its not sending to the people
> for them to view. Its possible the person can see his own post and no
> one else has seen it. ersver can screw up in a vast number of ways. Also
> connections can go bad several different ways as well.
>
brenninkmeier huh!

-- 
~Vink

http:/vinkesteijn.info/Vink.jpg
0
GerardJan
3/14/2012 12:32:00 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

test test test test test test
test test test test test test test test test test test ...

TEST TEST TEST TEST TEST
from forums 11:55 AM PST 02/12/2008 ...

test test test test
OE is a pain in my ass, test test test -- http://www.spywareinfo.com PGP Public key at http://www.spywareinfo.com/Mike_Healan.txt ...

test test test test
what is the deal with these bizarre "test updates"? i did a couple, but they just keep coming. On Feb 20, 7:08=A0pm, inspector.arc...@gmail.com wrote: > what is the deal with these bizarre "test updates"? i did a couple, > but they just keep coming. what? my email is accessible?! what the hell are you thinking? please delete these posts and remove my email address from public access. unbelievable! ...

testing and testing and testing :)
and again :) Carsten Book wrote: > and again :) Testing is fun! Stephen Donner wrote: > Carsten Book wrote: >> and again :) > > Testing is fun! test Stephen Donner wrote: > Stephen Donner wrote: >> Carsten Book wrote: >>> and again :) >> >> Testing is fun! > test testing too :p ...

test, test, test
test ...

test test test
test test test test for test "Praveen Hari" <phari@sybase.com> wrote in message news:enLr8dDFDHA.310@forums-1-dub... > test test test > > > ...

Test Test Test
Name: Gervase Markham Email: gervatmozilladotorg Product: Firefox Summary: Test Test Test Comments: Testing Hendrix. Gerv Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008052912 Firefox/3.0 From URL: http://localhost/src/hendrix/ ...

test test test
test test MJB Law Office wrote: > test test Is this legal? propman wrote: > MJB Law Office wrote: >> test test > > Is this legal? > Hey, propman, the post is from a law firm, so it must be legal! Right?? Daniel Daniel wrote: > propman wrote: >> MJB Law Office wrote: >>> test test >> >> Is this legal? >> > > Hey, propman, the post is from a law firm, so it must be legal! Right?? Mr. Bumble replies "If the law supposes that� the law is a ass�a idiot. If that�s the eye of the law, the law is...

test test test
test test test ...

Test message...TEST
tset ...

Test TEst TEst Test for Pre-DRE
Test TEst TEst Test for Pre-DRE Test TEst TEst Test for Pre-DRE Test TEst TEst Test for Pre-DRE Test TEst TEst Test for Pre-DRE Test TEst TEst Test for Pre-DRE ...

test test test #3
test ...

test test test #3
test -- why is this not working!!! Raymond Alexander wrote: > test > -- why is this not working!!! ahh! -- ...

test test test #4
Testing --- Remy Lebeau (TeamB) ...

Web resources about - test tthe message - mozilla.test

Message - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A message is a discrete unit of communication intended by the source for consumption by some recipient or group of recipients. A message may ...

Court approves employers' right to read your instant messages and WhatsApp
Australian employers are already within their rights to read employees' instant messages.

Alan Rickman: Daniel Radcliffe posts rare social media message to the late actor
Their characters may have hated each other, off screen Radcliffe and Rickman were thick as thieves.

OS X 10.11.4 beta adds support for viewing and sharing Live Photos in Messages
Sharing and viewing Live Photos shot on the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus on the Mac has been tricky if not impossible until now. Previously the enhanced ...

What Are Facebook Messenger Users Doing, Besides Sending Messages?
It’s no surprise that the most popular action taken by users of Facebook’s Messenger application is sending messages, but what else are they ...

Private messages at work can be read by European employers
Judges in the European Court of Human Rights say an employer that read a worker's private messages and then sacked him was in the right.

'I'll take care of you:' and more flirty text messages between 'El Chapo' and Mexican actress Kate del ...
Prior to Sean Penn's rambling exclusive interview with drug lord Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzmán, the Sinaloa cartel boss and famed Mexican actress ...

Jakarta attacks: Indonesians share defiant message of 'We are not afraid'
CNN Jakarta attacks: Indonesians share defiant message of 'We are not afraid' CNN (CNN) Soon after explosions rocked central Jakarta on Thursday, ...

Hagel’s Message To The Next President: ‘Listen To Our Military’
Second time in as many months the former Defense secretary has criticized Obama

Pollster's message to top House Republicans: Fear Ted Cruz
The Republican establishment is already terrified of Donald Trump being the party’s presidential nominee, and now the party’s House leadership ...

Resources last updated: 1/15/2016 2:14:16 PM