On Jun 21, 4:30 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <wk788js7wv75$.cyulo0xxm1od....@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> Hans Lister <styme...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sorry Roy Schestowitz, but nothing at all was made up.
> > Your email complete with PGP signature proves exactly what you
> > are all about and all the attempts at deflection won't help you
> > out.
>
> I'm no fan of Roy, but he deserves a fair shake (even though he usually
> isn't fair to the people he attacks).
>
> The email in the blog post proves *nothing* at this time. The author of
> the blog entry says the signature checks, but have you verified it?
>
> I am confident that you have not, because I *have* tried to verify it,
> and was unable to. To check a signature, you need to message. The
> conversion of the message to HTML for posting has mangled enough of it
> in ways that are not easily reversed.
Roy said the email was his. He verified it in this thread. He said it
lacks context though.
> Until the blog author makes the message available by a mechanism that
> doesn't mangle it (downloadable file, perhaps, or uuencode it before
> putting it in the blog) so that any third party can check to see if
> Roy's signature matches, the claims against Roy are completely
> unsubstantiated.
>
> Roy: if you indeed are innocent of the accusation against you, your best
> defense is that alleged email from you. Just insist that the blog author
> publish the email unmangled. If he does so, and the signature does not
> check, you will have caught him in a massive lie, and destroyed his
> credibility. Don't get distracted arguing the points of his blog
> entry--focus exclusively on his claim that he has an email that says
> what the posted email says, with a valid signature from you.
>
Roy never claimed the email was mangled, just that it didn't include
all the context that previous emails would show. Fair enough, but an
easy fix for him to provide the context.
|
|
