From: "Dr. D.C. Williams" <dcwill@python.ee.unr.edu> I would prefer to teach fewer of them to speak than teach a larger number of them to grunt. I would rather that the fewer speak and that the rest grunt rather than remain silent. A bogus signature is, of course, unverifiable. Why waste effort requiring something as non-functional as a spoofed signature? For the architectural changes that have to be made to do such a thing automatically. Why? Even AOlers can make a bogus sig as a .sig file and attach it to every outgoing message. But this doesn't create even a bogus signature. There's still a line at the top to add. This misunderstanding about what constitutes valid syntax colors your whole argument. Then the vast majority of grunters will put a spoof in their .sig files and be "done" with crypto. .sig spoofing won't work; it's only the bottom half. That's the whole point, is that some active action must be taken, be it once to set up something automatic or many times with each message. In the first case, the automaticity is obtained, a postive benefit of itself. In the second, a value is recalled to mind each time. I'm disappointed that your original objective has been compromised by an "automatic-spoof-is-good -enough" clause. It's not good enough, but it is partial progress. Merely because one technique doesn't accomplish everything is no reason to abandon it. Eric