Re: How to best handle forgeries? - Slackware

This is a discussion on Re: How to best handle forgeries? - Slackware ; We are cross-posting this to alt.os.linux.slackware because it is so hilarious. This guy is convinced that we are really Dan C and we live in Florida. He can prove it. This article is the product of a huge cross-posted troll ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: How to best handle forgeries?

  1. Re: How to best handle forgeries?

    We are cross-posting this to alt.os.linux.slackware because it is so
    hilarious. This guy is convinced that we are really Dan C and we
    live in Florida. He can prove it. This article is the product of a
    huge cross-posted troll by Guy Macon.

    We'll clean it up a bit since he doesn't know how to use an editor.

    [ This is a repost of the following article: ]
    [ From: Anonymous Sender ]
    [ Subject: Re: How to best handle forgeries? ]
    [ Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server ]
    [ Message-ID: <0098a63d8b13679af811069cbbf3265e@remailer.metacolo .com> ]

    rm wrote:
    > says:
    >>rm wrote:
    >>> says:


    >>>>Header signatures are problematic if not impossible for most
    >>>>people to verify because virtually all software adheres to RFC
    >>>>standards and handles inline or MIME signatures alone,


    >>Simple facts:


    >>1) There's established standards for implementing digital
    >>signatures in messages.


    >There are?


    Yes Einstein, there are. I'd suggest you start educating yourself by
    reading RFC 2802, but I'm sure it's far too complex a document to be
    of any real use to you.

    > How you implement pgp is totally irrelevant.


    On the contrary. Implementation is everything in this context.

    > The only thing that matters is whether you can use it to verify a
    > signature.


    Which, as we've already established, is difficult or impossible
    without adhering to established standards.

    > And you can use pgp in headers or mime, to verify a signature.


    No, you can use PGP in message bodies or MIME. That's the only
    permissible usage. Sorry.

    >>2) None of them put signature data in any header.


    > Who cares? All you are doing is admitting that you don't know how
    > to do it.


    Everybody but you cares, and the only admission I'm making is that
    you're a nut with an agenda against PGP because it helps people
    avoid being your targets.

    > But, increasingly, more and more people are doing it because of
    > usenet


    No, they're not. Less and less people are doing it because it's not
    part of the OpenPGP standard, which *is* being followed by more and
    more people.

    Again your grasp of things is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

    >>> You don't _need_ "virtually all software" to verify pgp trash,
    >>> unless you don't know what pgp is, or how to use it.


    >>Of course you do.


    > No, you don't. Please give us a partial list. Tell us all the
    > software that you need to verify a pgp signature.


    I'll give you the complete list condensed... RFC/OpenPGP compliant
    software.

    >>Do you have any idea how stupid you look now?


    > Right. You don't know how to put pgp in headers. You think that
    > you


    What makes you think I don't know how?

    On the contrary fool, I've been at this a lot longer than you have
    even with your long history of forging and harassing others. I've
    used PGP headers in the past. They don't work, which is why that is
    the only implementation you're advocating. It's also why hteyve not
    been adopted by any standard.

    > But our name is Ronald L. Matthews.


    No, that's just one of your many pseudonyms. The fact that you're
    trying to direct attention to it tells us that the "Dan C"
    connection struck a nerve.

    Does the fact that Mr. Macon has an IP to attach to your idiocy
    bother you, nut?

  2. Re: How to best handle forgeries?

    I might have guessed that Dan C would be involved in this mess.

    On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:35:16 +0000, rm wrote:

    > We are cross-posting this to alt.os.linux.slackware because it is so
    > hilarious. This guy is convinced that we are really Dan C and we live in
    > Florida. He can prove it. This article is the product of a huge
    > cross-posted troll by Guy Macon.
    >
    > We'll clean it up a bit since he doesn't know how to use an editor.
    >
    > [ This is a repost of the following article:
    > ] [ From: Anonymous Sender
    > ] [ Subject: Re: How to best handle forgeries?
    > ] [ Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server
    > ] [ Message-ID:
    > <0098a63d8b13679af811069cbbf3265e@remailer.metacolo .com> ]
    >
    > rm wrote:
    >> says:
    >>>rm wrote:
    >>>> says:

    >
    >>>>>Header signatures are problematic if not impossible for most people to
    >>>>>verify because virtually all software adheres to RFC standards and
    >>>>>handles inline or MIME signatures alone,

    >
    >>>Simple facts:

    >
    >>>1) There's established standards for implementing digital signatures in
    >>>messages.

    >
    >>There are?

    >
    > Yes Einstein, there are. I'd suggest you start educating yourself by
    > reading RFC 2802, but I'm sure it's far too complex a document to be of
    > any real use to you.
    >
    >> How you implement pgp is totally irrelevant.

    >
    > On the contrary. Implementation is everything in this context.
    >
    >> The only thing that matters is whether you can use it to verify a
    >> signature.

    >
    > Which, as we've already established, is difficult or impossible without
    > adhering to established standards.
    >
    >> And you can use pgp in headers or mime, to verify a signature.

    >
    > No, you can use PGP in message bodies or MIME. That's the only permissible
    > usage. Sorry.
    >
    >>>2) None of them put signature data in any header.

    >
    >> Who cares? All you are doing is admitting that you don't know how to do
    >> it.

    >
    > Everybody but you cares, and the only admission I'm making is that you're
    > a nut with an agenda against PGP because it helps people avoid being your
    > targets.
    >
    >> But, increasingly, more and more people are doing it because of usenet

    >
    > No, they're not. Less and less people are doing it because it's not part
    > of the OpenPGP standard, which *is* being followed by more and more
    > people.
    >
    > Again your grasp of things is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.
    >
    >>>> You don't _need_ "virtually all software" to verify pgp trash, unless
    >>>> you don't know what pgp is, or how to use it.

    >
    >>>Of course you do.

    >
    >> No, you don't. Please give us a partial list. Tell us all the software
    >> that you need to verify a pgp signature.

    >
    > I'll give you the complete list condensed... RFC/OpenPGP compliant
    > software.
    >
    >>>Do you have any idea how stupid you look now?

    >
    >> Right. You don't know how to put pgp in headers. You think that you

    >
    > What makes you think I don't know how?
    >
    > On the contrary fool, I've been at this a lot longer than you have even
    > with your long history of forging and harassing others. I've used PGP
    > headers in the past. They don't work, which is why that is the only
    > implementation you're advocating. It's also why hteyve not been adopted by
    > any standard.
    >
    >> But our name is Ronald L. Matthews.

    >
    > No, that's just one of your many pseudonyms. The fact that you're trying
    > to direct attention to it tells us that the "Dan C" connection struck a
    > nerve.
    >
    > Does the fact that Mr. Macon has an IP to attach to your idiocy bother
    > you, nut?



  3. Re: How to best handle forgeries?

    On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:02:47 +0100, anon wrote:

    > I might have guessed that Dan C would be involved in this mess.


    He's not. Quit replying to your own posts under a different name, Roger.

    Bugger off.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as Christopher Robin pleaded to be spanked again.


+ Reply to Thread