So far I have received six comments on the proposed sign-or-delay system, two in public, four in private. All have been supportive of concept, but there have been specific technical issues with it.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The concept I support is encouraging signatures, not some "sign or delay" scheme. I think such schemes don't really help encourage the use of signatures as much as they exclude people who live in the wrong place or who don't have the right computers. And a "make it look signed or delay" scheme is even worse. It just encourages people to either give up on the list and go back to some place where the rules make more sense or, even worse, waste their valuable time writing code that produces funny "psuedosignatures" that serve no valuable purpose. A much better way to spread cryptography is to work on developing new and transparent mechanisms that help regular people securely integrate signatures and encryption into their routine work without having to do anything special or different. Trying to make life more inconvinient for people who already identify themselves as "cypherpunks" but who for whatever reason don't have easy access to the right tools seems not the way to do it. -matt