That's it, it is over...

[Steve Lamb]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Friday, September 15, 2000, 10:14:43 AM, Gregory wrote:
> I agree 100% ... I often wondered why Steve bothered when he didn't use the
> product ... but that's his business ... I was merely trying to point out
> that without knowing what was said it would be a shame to have this list
> degenerate into chaos with wild-ass guesses, rumors, FUD, etc ...

    Agreed.  I think I should have silently faded out of view but that really
isn't my style.  I will say this, it is based on my interpretation of what
they said and it is mine alone, part of the reason why I don't repost it.
Trevor or Thomas by proxy want to post for others to judge, that is up to
them.  But I don't want those who still use the product, for whatever reason,
to worry about what I think.  Look, I'm the crusty old curmudgeon who hasn't
used it in 18 months.  My opinion on the matter most likely ranks right around
dirt right now because of that.  Take it all with a grain of salt and, I
dunno, debate the merits of PGP signing HTML email and why such things such
because there is no standards for HTML email, PGP signing or PGP signing of
HTML email.

- --
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5i

iQA/AwUBOcJbUHpf7K2LbpnFEQK1iACg1nmz7UvuFHnokCrNFywbE2rzWC8AoMXG
l22ZsaofOTAf6RX/YI8l7HG9
=E1Sz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----