OffTopic: use of signed messages on USENET

[David Gravereaux]

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

Many people are angry with me posting messages using PGP/MIME. So I
thought I'd look at different methods and weight the options available.

First, MIME is allowed on USENET. Scott Dorsey says no, but here's an
example of this very argument:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt/msg/d4f1d74630b1f254>

And I'm sure for each example of a yes, there is a no as well.

Now whether a posting will propagate is another issue. Apparently,
there is no problem with PGP/MIME messages being posted to text-only
groups. It makes sense to me as the content is all text anyways.

But aside from PGP/MIME there are also S/MIME and cleartext PGP (also
called inline PGP)

S/MIME is probably the most easily used as it comes standard in the most
popular clients without the use of extensions. Outlook Express included.

<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~pkilab/pages/Using_SMIME_e-mail.html#Clients>

So I experimented by getting a free personal cert from
<http://www.thawte.com/> and modifying Thunderbird to allow newsgroup
postings with it
<http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/06/digitally-signing-newsgroup-posts/>

I came to the same conclusion as Chris did. S/MIME is worthless on
USENET as it apparently trips the text-only filters.

PGP/MIME is bad only for the reason of improper RFC1847 support in
Outlook Express which makes proper PGP/MIME messages show as
attachments. Which is odd as OE supports S/MIME just fine and RFC1847
(MIME-encryp) is the basis for it... Go figure...

So that only leaves inline PGP as ugly as it is for those viewing this
in clients that don't understand PGP and can't strip the crud. PGP/MIME
has the crud sectioned off for proper stripping whether a client
understands PGP or not. So technically, it's the better choice 'cept
for the broken Microsoft software that is especially pervasive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvgu unir cevinpl
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAko5yRAACgkQlZadkQh/RmEzpgCgomYmOce25SPBQPXr/NQL58+A
UrkAn12si4L6qpzmzcC0AFX/6AFBrcYF
=yWTd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Steve King]

"David Gravereaux" > wrote in message
...
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| Hash: SHA1
|
| Many people are angry with me posting messages using PGP/MIME. So I
| thought I'd look at different methods and weight the options available.
|
| First, MIME is allowed on USENET. Scott Dorsey says no, but here's an
| example of this very argument:
| <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt/msg/d4f1d74630b1f254>
|
| And I'm sure for each example of a yes, there is a no as well.
|
| Now whether a posting will propagate is another issue. Apparently,
| there is no problem with PGP/MIME messages being posted to text-only
| groups. It makes sense to me as the content is all text anyways.
|
| But aside from PGP/MIME there are also S/MIME and cleartext PGP (also
| called inline PGP)
|
| S/MIME is probably the most easily used as it comes standard in the most
| popular clients without the use of extensions. Outlook Express included.
|
| <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~pkilab/pages/Using_SMIME_e-mail.html#Clients>
|
| So I experimented by getting a free personal cert from
| <http://www.thawte.com/> and modifying Thunderbird to allow newsgroup
| postings with it
| <http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/06/digitally-signing-newsgroup-posts/>
|
| I came to the same conclusion as Chris did. S/MIME is worthless on
| USENET as it apparently trips the text-only filters.
|
| PGP/MIME is bad only for the reason of improper RFC1847 support in
| Outlook Express which makes proper PGP/MIME messages show as
| attachments. Which is odd as OE supports S/MIME just fine and RFC1847
| (MIME-encryp) is the basis for it... Go figure...
|
| So that only leaves inline PGP as ugly as it is for those viewing this
| in clients that don't understand PGP and can't strip the crud. PGP/MIME
| has the crud sectioned off for proper stripping whether a client
| understands PGP or not. So technically, it's the better choice 'cept
| for the broken Microsoft software that is especially pervasive.
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
| Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
| Comment: When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvgu unir cevinpl
| Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
|
| iEYEARECAAYFAko5yRAACgkQlZadkQh/RmEzpgCgomYmOce25SPBQPXr/NQL58+A
| UrkAn12si4L6qpzmzcC0AFX/6AFBrcYF
| =yWTd
| -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I'm not angry with you at all. However, I suspect that you have way too
much time on your hands, you are more concerned with your method of
communicating than the content of your communications, and, therefore,
aren't really adding much on topic to my newsgroup experience. If Outlook
Express is pervasive as you say, either accomodate it or accept that most of
us aren't going to bother with your attachments. If speaking without being
heard (so to speak) is satisfying to you stay on the path you are on.

Steve King

[David Gravereaux]

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

Steve King wrote:

....

> I'm not angry with you at all. However, I suspect that you have way too
> much time on your hands, you are more concerned with your method of
> communicating than the content of your communications, and, therefore,
> aren't really adding much on topic to my newsgroup experience. If Outlook
> Express is pervasive as you say, either accomodate it or accept that most of
> us aren't going to bother with your attachments. If speaking without being
> heard (so to speak) is satisfying to you stay on the path you are on.

As you can see, this and the previous message are an accommodation as
you (and others using Outlook/OutlookExpress/Live) are able to read
them, but with the crud seen. You get an attachment with the PGP/MIME
method due to your broken software, not mine. You may add a PGP
software addon to OE if you would like the crud to be filtered out for
you. It won't fix the MIME problem, though. If your newsreader handled
MIME properly the way it is documented, no software addon would be
required to filter the crud. MIME came about around 1993. It isn't new.

I'll add to the on-topic conversation when there's something interesting
to talk about, hence the obvious titling of this thread -- like system
grounding methodologies in multi-room facilities or somesuch. I'll talk
your ears off on that subject.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvgu unir cevinpl
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAko6f6AACgkQlZadkQh/RmGZaACbB0KVYNOpyzrfmOt9498I55OL
tl0An2yHVTI+S7nzj1ykHjw4GU4LrwUe
=k9em
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Sean Conolly]

> As you can see, this and the previous message are an accommodation as
> you (and others using Outlook/OutlookExpress/Live) are able to read
> them, but with the crud seen. You get an attachment with the PGP/MIME
> method due to your broken software, not mine. You may add a PGP
> software addon to OE if you would like the crud to be filtered out for
> you. It won't fix the MIME problem, though. If your newsreader handled
> MIME properly the way it is documented, no software addon would be
> required to filter the crud. MIME came about around 1993. It isn't new.

Wrong - it's not because the readers can't handle it. The usenet convention
for decades has been to use plain text, and I don't see why it should change
because you feel like doing something* in your messages that require MIME
instead of plaintext. You are simply choosing not to follow the convention,
and blaming everyone else for not accomadating you while you do so. It's
very simple: speak the local language or don't get heard.

* Seriously, why do you even care if it's MIME unless you're using fonts or
adding pictures?

** Also, the reason why I configure my news and mail reader to not read HTML
is because of the endless ways that malware and virusii can be injected into
your system in HTML. Plain text is the safest form of non-encrypted
messaging.

Sean

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly > wrote:
>> As you can see, this and the previous message are an accommodation as
>> you (and others using Outlook/OutlookExpress/Live) are able to read
>> them, but with the crud seen. You get an attachment with the PGP/MIME
>> method due to your broken software, not mine. You may add a PGP
>> software addon to OE if you would like the crud to be filtered out for
>> you. It won't fix the MIME problem, though. If your newsreader handled
>> MIME properly the way it is documented, no software addon would be
>> required to filter the crud. MIME came about around 1993. It isn't new.
>
>Wrong - it's not because the readers can't handle it. The usenet convention
>for decades has been to use plain text, and I don't see why it should change
>because you feel like doing something* in your messages that require MIME
>instead of plaintext. You are simply choosing not to follow the convention,
>and blaming everyone else for not accomadating you while you do so. It's
>very simple: speak the local language or don't get heard.

Guys, can you please take this to news.admin where it belongs?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Guys, can you please take this to news.admin where it belongs?

Or just plonk him for contributing nothing to the topic of auido.

[David Gravereaux]

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

Agreed, but I'll stop here instead.

Notes on the way out, though:
1) rfc1855 (netiquette guidlines) states a specific exclusion to the use
of PGP signatures on usenet. See page section 3.1.3 on NetNews guidelines.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAko8ARMACgkQlZadkQh/RmGSdwCgpf04a9H2V3x86axTg1a3pFbm
VvwAoKhLwD0GMXogSgmbaoU1SJKqUq/S
=z21h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----