Let me be REAL clear about this. The immediate proposal is to mark and possibly delay unsigned messages to the list. The proposal does NOT include bouncing messages or preventing use. These options are acknowledged as possibilities for the future. They are not on the table right now. I, unlike the gov't, will warn you of your impending doom. From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Not to trivialize this proposal by frivolously insulting it, but consider a mailing list that decided to delay/bounce any messages that were not written in TeX, or in Acrobat, or whatever. I don't think you are frivolously insulting it, but I do think you are ignoring the basic distinction I made about the difference between measures which prevent use and measures which do not. The use of the syntax "delay/bounce" denies exactly this distinction. [...] to delay/bounce any messages that were not written in TeX, or in Acrobat, or whatever. How would people react who lacked these capabilities, or preferred to use alternatives (like simple unadorned text), or who merely object to an enforced standard? I have two answers, one for delay, the other for bounce. 1. For delay or other non-preclusive measures, those who do not use the valorized feature can still use the list. They get signalled in some fashion that use of the valorized feature is desired. I consider this primarily a communication mechanism. I wish to communicate to everyone one the list that using digital signatures is something that I want everyone to do. In particular, that means that you, the current reader of this message, are one of the people I want to use digital signatures. Rhetoric is not as effective as a policy embedded in software that people interact with. Doing is more effective than hearing. 2. For bouncing or other preclusive measures, those who do not use the valorized feature can't participate in the discussion. This would in many situations be counterproductive, but in others, say, an experimental group discussing design in Acrobat, absolutely vital. As this is not germane to the actual proposal, I leave off here. But that Eric [...] has some notions of what people _ought_ to be using does not seem to be enough to effectively bar those who helped form the Cypherpunks group (many of us) just because they choose to communicate in one particular way. I want you, Tim May, to use digital signatures. There, that's explicit and verbal. I do understand if your software doesn't cooperate. I've been there. I'm not (to repeat) talking about a proposal to eliminate you from the list. Does a mark or a delay constitute an "effective bar" from participation on this list? I think not, although I'm entertaining arguments. If some flavor of PGP is mandated, I expect I'll unsubscribe (as I can't stand reading but not posting...lurkers obvious feel otherwise). Whoa! We went from an effective bar to an actual prevention there. That's not what I'm talking about. And I'm not tied to PGP by any means. You want to make a digital signature with some other piece of software? Fine. I'll add it right in. Absent a compelling reason, a market reason, why bother with someone's notion of ideological reasons? I'm not a libertarian (neither big L nor small l), and I don't find an identity between compelling reasons and market reasons, as apposition implies. The implementation of function at the server is a communication between me, Eric Hughes, the implementor of that nasty shit, and you, the participant in the cypherpunks list, that I want you to use digital signatures. Now, because of my position as de facto list maintainer, I can do this and you can't. I've got the bully pulpit, and while I've not used it much, I am beginning want to spend some it on urging crypto deployment and usage. Not all is lost for erstwhile communicators. One could write a filter to look for unsigned posts and pipe them off through a suitably hacked 'vacation' filter which would send them a missive (but not too often) encouraging the use of cryptography and which would include pointers to software. This kind of communication is similar in form but not in scope to what I've proposed for the list. In fact, if someone were to bundle this kit up, I suspect it might receive fairly wide use. [...] perhaps I'd insist that all posts be paid for in digital cash...or bought, or whatever. You hypothetical includes an insistence. Mine does not. Again, I thought the proposal was to ultimately reject non-signed articles? There's a very explicit disclaimer to contrary in the original. To paraphrase, it acknowledged the possibility of rejection but removed it from immediate consideration. Speaking of this, it's already pretty clear who signs and who doesn't. What could be clearer than "----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---"? What about random headers with things like: X-Signature: none X-Warning: Cryptography Non-User X-Heckle: Yo! Too _good_ to use crypto? X-Lazy: Jeez, Eric's even got a Unix box at home and _still_ isn't signing? X-Bozo: God, Tim's been on this list for over two years and he still doesn't sign his posts? X-Traitor-To-The-Cause: <insert From: field contents here> X-Cryptography-Impaired-And-Proud: [For the satire impaired, note the use of the phrase "satire impaired" at the beginning of this sentence.] If the proposal is to stamp a scarlet letter on non-signers, it seems overly harsh, somewhat petty, kind of insulting, and not needed. A scarlet letter is a reasonable apt analogy, except the intent is not to create outcasts. Harsh? I still fail to see that. Petty? What trivial mattr is being blown out of proportion? Insulting? I'm sure some people can take it that way. Not needed? Perhaps not, but I may _want_ it. Eric