No, Jeff is correct on both counts.. sorry. The value of the list
is minimal if anything. No offense intended. I think it had some
merit, if for nothing else as a good idea.

The PGP stuff doesn't add any value to your posts. They're
just clutter. You claim that SHS1 hash may not verify, but
for ng posting, who really cares? It's not like you're posting
to a secure site with classified data. It's just an annoyance
for everyone else. I could see it in an email, I suppose, as
a valid security measure, but even then, same question...
most people, 99.99999% don't have anything that's worth
stealing from an email.

"two wheels" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:16:33 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:

I'd have to agree with RB - what's the value of your list?

And RB's "pregnancy" was not his post - it was a forgery; a good hoax,
since it was consistent with much of his nonsense. I assumed he
forget his meds that day.

And what's with the PGP silliness? It doesn't prevent any forgeries -
it just makes your posts look stupid.

If the "SHA1 hash" doesn't "verify" for one of these two "PGP
fingerprints":

Before 9/4/2003:
C7B4 9CA6 9698 01D2 2823 DF72 F151 AD95 DA1D AF09

After 9/4/2003:
4753 0A55 AB76 FFE8 BF6A 95C1 D081 036D DEC9 FE39

Then assume I didn't write it.

On the otherhand, if the PGP message signature does "verify" for one of
the above "fingerprints," then I can't really disavow it.

two wheels


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP6VNJNCBA23eyf45EQK2EgCfSL63Uwmga7eK924eyh3tY5 c3xUMAn1HC
l5uRrwReNBFHdk7QiUiLYJjY
=D2rn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----