Update on mail bombing threats--not so funny
dan at dpcsys.com
Sat Jan 11 06:21:21 UTC 1997
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> At 07:09 PM 1/10/97 -0800, Dan Busarow wrote:
> >So in order to post to nanog you would have to have your PGP
> >key signed by NANOG or the list operator or another entity trusted
> Having a key-signing party at the upcoming NANOG is a good
> place to start.
No doubt, but it doesn't address the problem that started this
thread. Yes, spreading the use of PGP is a good thing, but I
don't see it as a tool to fight spam or, more importantly, spam
terrorisim. Not in the near term anyway.
> Strong crypto for the masses!
But of course :) If we can deploy it widely enough. We encourage
all of our clients to use PGP.
> For what it's worth, the same model holds true for meetings of
> the IETF; Ted Tso has been organizing key-signing parties that
> are held one evening during IETF week.
The point I was trying to make was that most on-line groups don't have
real life, face to face meetings. They can't implement the key signing
Maybe requiring signed posts wouldn't be that bad of an idea. While
the policy wouldn't solve anything right now it could serve as an example.
Dan Busarow 714 443 4172
DPC Systems dan at dpcsys.com
Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the NANOG