Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #373007

Re: owl - please test

Show all headers | View raw

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/16, 3:25 PM, in article
> hqedneSB1IJa03XKnZ2dnUU7-budnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"
> <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Hi owl, 
>> 
>> This is a test of signing the post from within slrn with a macro.
>> 
>> - -- 
>> Marek Novotny
>> https://github.com/marek-novotny
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>> 
>> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJX6E7GAAoJEC9nkebvym+hRPEP/i3t2sdxSak98YVtXkl0Ik64
>> MJP2VDxcHcjQtvMBD3ZYOFqfY+f4+EIwSClAfALP7L3YTpVRM3OqIvBAmfMK0kYY
>> WXAtN506j+fGSTgrKHRTlqJD5OCBgbYusKuSErF9CJTqSfU/7OYyjFJgagLBL7qk
>> M8n5wmMoHfCZoy+6fhk8x2UQBz0zfq80qntK1ymt41yZ3jXeJ0wZnEF9bOwUH5IV
>> QiRkwAkn0Nq42rQMnM97i3tqJLAnCafqSWxd7SoX2LzgEWjd+ZsAXU7CJ9HUm5YH
>> YI8sFGDVqaxjAav1qeyKGmIS6h1CfPssl3OerSpUk3WA6sQ84ZWq+h2Et1TpZQ52
>> 5K02bZlvAi0Ia5ZNOhvonSOlAiXXHGXAwNOy17BkKqnj/OA8K427oRRVFi//DswP
>> AowneAFWk7r0XVG0TetTlDTX33yYfTssO5f0wnLDEbahc3R30wBOxnx5mpaILx7A
>> Eq/Sphg46FsjO/WW9yXfxtpSpqVMmyFYyr2y+d1VBgsCDBl+BtbbrbhihDTk2Gfm
>> 3iFshl4+PQ4Ms+uRxkMk0M5GYHU83fe7bIjMfd/3XGUkhzMfYC9Dg+8tTeff/c1Z
>> Zq+QblRAFchSK/yA1UO/Xuy/m/ehSMX25+Qhy8z9CNxGs6vqH+mhe4gMaY8c9dbF
>> ZJXNCybsrZ5vGQko+vb0
>> =zo4t
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> While the longer signature line is more secure, really a very short one
> would accomplish the point of making it very hard for anyone to forge a post
> AND would not clutter your posts as much. When many Usenet posts are short
> having such a long "security block" makes little sense.
> 

Moron.  You could have just noted that you don't have a clue how
any of this works, and left it at that.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

owl - please test Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 22:25 +0000
  Re: owl - please test "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 22:31 +0000
    Re: owl - please test Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 22:44 +0000
      Re: owl - please test Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 15:47 -0700
      Re: owl - please test "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 23:06 +0000
        Re: owl - please test Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 23:17 +0000
    Re: owl - please test Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 15:45 -0700
      Re: owl - please test Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 22:47 +0000
    Why are you responding to a question addressed to owl? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:43 -0700
      Re: Why are you responding to a question addressed to owl? "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-28 18:02 +0000
      Re: Why are you responding to a question addressed to owl? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-09-28 19:46 -0400
        Why are you responding to a question addressed to owl? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 17:14 -0700
  Re: owl - please test "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-27 18:57 +0000
    Re: owl - please test Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-09-27 19:02 +0000
      Re: owl - please test "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-27 19:10 +0000
        Re: owl - please test Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 12:32 -0700
        Re: owl - please test Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 12:46 -0700
      Re: owl - please test Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 12:33 -0700
    Re: owl - please test Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 12:01 -0700

csiph-web