PGP signatures

[Ralph Cohen]

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:55:56 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:21:58 -0400, Ralph Cohen wrote:
>
>>>    No, because the original isn't signed.  If they make changes to the
>>>original they can still use my signed reply as verification of it.
>
>>Guess what!  You could send a PGP signed version of the original
>>message as confirmation of it's authenticity.
>
>    Which I could change from the original before sending it out.  You're not
>quite grasping the concept, here, are you?
>

Actually, I have a pretty firm grasp of the concept.  It is you who
keeps looking to invent problems for which yours is the only solution.


>>>    Why should I be concerned?  Waste bandwidth.  I don't think the ~210
>>>bytes that represents the PGP signature is bandwidth to be concerned over.
>
>>Great, then I guess you no longer object to the HTML stuff anymore?
>
>    Hmmm...  Oh, right, you're the one with selective reading.  You forgot to
>read, and quote, the part where I pointed out that HTML information is
>significantly larger and is mostly duplicated information which serves no
>value.
>

You actually seem to be the one with a selective reading problem since
you forgot to read and quote the part where I pointed out that the PGP
information you include in your message is, like the HTML information,
of little or no value to most participants in this list.


>    Meanwhile the PGP stuff does serve a value, is not duplicate information,
>and is realatively small.  For example, your message, which is 5K, would only
>grow by 4% with the inclusion of a PGP signature from a ~5120 to a whopping
>~5330.  Meanwhile, the same message in HTML, would go from ~5120 to over
>~12288, or an approximate growth of 140%.  Do you see the difference here, do
>you grasp the concept?
>

Hmmm, let's see.  If you send a two line message and add your PGP
information to it,  the message expands to 13 lines which represents a
growth of 550%.  Do YOU grasp the concept?

>
>>>    The difference is, here you're being an asshole as this block of text
>>>serves no purpose.  The PGP signature does serve a purpose.
>
>>Only a moron would label someone an "asshole" for creating such a
>>brilliant piece of parody.
>
>    No.  A moron would label someone an "Asshole" for creating a brilliant
>piece of parody when said person is in the right.  You are not.  You're
>clearly and utterly in the wrong.  Only an asshole would try to mock his way
>out of an arguement.
>

Oh, you're right.  I meant to say that only a congenitally brain-dead
imbecile would fail to appreciate the fundamental truths which were
contained in my brilliant piece of parody.  Sorry for so obviously
confusing you and for inadvertently disparaging morons everywhere.

Ralph Cohen

rpcohen@neurotron,com