ed <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:17:56 +0000
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> ____/ ed on Thursday 08 November 2007 23:59 : \____
>>
>> > On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:40:30 -0800
>> > ball.cock.the.plumber@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >
>> >> He sure does seem to have an obsession with castration?
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=schestowitz%2Bcastrate&btnG=Google+Search
>> >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=schestowitz%2Bcastration&btnG=Search
>> >
>> >
>> > That's not post originating from Roy though, that's stuff from
>> > others containing those search terms.
>>
>> All are fake posts from Gary Stewart, a.k.a. "flatfish", a.k.a.
>> ball.cock.the.plumber@xxxxxxxxx, who pretended to be me and cited his
>> own forged posts.
>
> Maybe we should all start gpg inline signing ... it makes the message
> messy, but it would help avoid some fraud.
It doesn't do anything of the sort. Since the reader can not know for
sure it is YOUR key. For them to be sure you would have to physically
give them it personally. And, of course, no one cares. Your pgg/gpg
wrappers are simply annoying.
--
Quantity is no substitute for quality, but its the only one we've got.
|
|
