Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download

Sandy Harris writes:
> Cypherpunks & Freedom Knights. Both should be very happy to
> see strong encryption becoming more widely available.

Yes, we are.

> >as long they continue to employ the child-molesting
> >pedophile Chris R. Lewis - the biggest forger on Usenet.
> What this scum is actually upset about is Chris Lewis cancelling
> spam. He calls that "forgery" because the spammer's name goes
> in the sender field of the cancel message. Nonsense.

According to RFC 1036 forging cancels for articles that do not
originate from your news site is not allowed. He is clearly in
violation of the RFCs. Spam jihads are not sufficient reason
to ignore internet protocols.

> Dimitri, the "forgeries" are going to continue until someone comes
> up with a better way of dealing with spam. 

There -is- a better way. It's called the delete key. Few seem to
want to use it, which fits with humanity's general lack of personal
responsibility. 

> The crap about pedophilia is also, of course, nonsense. It seems
> to be a favorite slur lately with several grossly misguided people
> who think calling people they dislike pedophiles is a way to
> "defend freedom of speech".

You have a better way to demonstrate free speech? 
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them
down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.

At 1:05 PM 7/30/97 -0700, Paul Pomes wrote:
> At 11:42 PDT on Wednesday, July 30, 1997, Dave Hayes wrote:
>>> Dimitri, the "forgeries" are going to continue until 
>>> someone comes up with a better way of dealing with spam. 
>>>  -  Paul Pomes
>>
>> There -is- a better way. It's called the delete key. Few 
>> seem to want to use it, which fits with humanity's general 
>> lack of personal responsibility. -  Dave Hayes
>
> Au contraire, cancels are the better way.  It spares me 
> from having to hit the delete key so many times.  It also 
> serves as a negative incentive and slows the growth of spam. 
> -  Paul Pomes

It is not a good idea to impose censorship on others by
supporting the laziness of Paul Pomes.

Jai Maharaj
jai@mantra.com
Om Shanti

Dave Hayes wrote:
> Sandy Harris writes:
> > What this scum is actually upset about is Chris Lewis cancelling
> > spam. He calls that "forgery" because the spammer's name goes
> > in the sender field of the cancel message. Nonsense.
 
> According to RFC 1036 forging cancels for articles that do not
> originate from your news site is not allowed. He is clearly in
> violation of the RFCs. Spam jihads are not sufficient reason
> to ignore internet protocols.
 
  Spamming is a crime (theft of computer resources) and sometimes
such acts may be justifiable self-defense, such as when I steal
from my employer because they don't pay me enough, or when I lie
on my income tax forms because I want to keep my money for myself.

  Just because Chris Lewis has complete disregard for internet
protocol and feels justified in violating the "trust" that others
place in the headers of the email they receive, is no reason to
believe that he should not be "Entrust(ed)" with working in an
area that might affect the security of a large number of people.

-- 
Martin Pool <m.pool@pharos.com.au>
Pharos Business Solutions