OT: USENET and cryptography (was: "annoying" inline gpg signatures)

[Kenneth P. Turvey]

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

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 08:38:05 -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:

> I also happen to use a usenet gateway to access ubuntu-users, but even if
> I was actually having it sent to my e-mail inbox, I'd still find those
> mime attachment signatures MUCH more annoying than the inline kind like
> Kenneth & I both use...
[Snip]

I actually use both.  I use the S/MIME signatures on email because that is
supported by more clients (particularly windows clients) than either the
inline PGP signatures or PGP/MIME.  I really wish we could all standardize
on one format.  Then we could be reasonably assured that a given client
will eventually support the standard.  S/MIME seems to be the way we are
headed for email, but on USENET MIME of any kind is still anathema.  What
we really need is an update of the USENET protocols.  There are a number
of problems with NNTP that could be addressed using cryptography.  We
could have a relatively spam free USENET with working cancels and
supersedes, and a common set of procedures for creating and removing
groups, authenticating users and so on.  

Unfortunately, getting this all to work and be adopted would be nearly
impossible due to the resistance of current USENET users.  

We can dream.  :-)

- -- 
Kenneth P. Turvey <kt-usenet at squeakydolphin.com>

XMPP  IM: kpturvey at jabber.org
Yahoo IM: kpturvey2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEOC5ti2ZgbrTULjoRArq/AJ4m0dCIYmeka/ZSMAb2GCP371ay9wCdGeV4
uYCcMv3ve38kJju2UQKUiZI=
=ZVQC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----