...

_________________________________________________________________ FROM THE VIRTUAL DESK OF SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [etc. etc.] What do others on this list think about "commercial" postings?

Sandy, I have to agree with John that it's philosophically inappropriate to discuss non-cryptographic topics on this list. Like many others, I come here to discuss ideas and technical concepts in an intellectual environment and to learn about how to protect everyone's privacy from people who know a hell of a lot more than I do about the mechanics of digital privacy. Anything that deviates from that had better, imho, do it quickly and as an aside to something more in line with the purpose of this list. I think you're respectful of that, and I don't have any _particular_ problem with what you posted, but probably because your msg stuck out _like a sore thumb_ (and thus the hyperbolic characterization of it as 'abuse') from the body of the normal discussion here and because he is a naturally cautious (thank goodness for that!) person, John probably mentioned this to you in the best terse way he knows how. My impression of John is that he is not prone to overreact, but rather that he prefers to deliver a srtaightforward warning with sufficient emphasis to avoid having to do it twice. Please get in touch with those of us who might have responded to your posting through more discrete channels. I sense that we need not discuss this any further here. d2t PS: As an aside to the topic of commercialism, I'd just like to point out what a hell of a nice job Zig is doing with the latest build of MacPGP (2.1e87). Attaboy, Zig!