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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #372699 > unrolled thread

Attn: Marek

Started by"Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid>
First post2016-09-25 14:18 +0000
Last post2016-09-25 12:28 -0600
Articles 15 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Attn: Marek "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 14:18 +0000
    Re: Attn: Marek Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 07:28 -0700
      Re: Attn: Marek "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 14:34 +0000
        Re: Attn: Marek Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 07:45 -0700
        Re: Attn: Marek Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 07:57 -0700
          Re: Attn: Marek Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 08:02 -0700
            Re: Attn: Marek Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 15:22 +0000
              Re: Attn: Marek Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 08:38 -0700
                Re: Attn: Marek "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 15:58 +0000
                  Re: Attn: Marek Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 09:02 -0700
                    Re: Attn: Marek Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 09:05 -0700
                      Re: Attn: Marek "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 16:24 +0000
              Re: Attn: Marek "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 15:56 +0000
                Re: Attn: Marek Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 16:10 +0000
              Re: Attn: Marek GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-25 12:28 -0600

#372699 — Attn: Marek

From"Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid>
Date2016-09-25 14:18 +0000
SubjectAttn: Marek
Message-ID<hjgju9doe.guu@perch.invalid>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Best to use an inline signature.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX59sRAAoJEPmLqQ2wmEqrogYIAId8GUdtUH/B8/VqachU5iSI
ZX/AlHVJM7dDVGDPYox23CBwVUiL9ojmLJRNQ+GAV9rg82nukHi3YWUYdDv5PL9l
0a9ebwKoVOQXZ8jRuESscLCF+42vaw2Cqd879EgVBVCtwbWGD1HECeERKUv9Hs8c
1ZYXunXWpAqUPZlFGpwt9B75J8fDU83vYhfaZB2bT7bNYBiWmmlYnxoDmQu2i2lM
lcTESCMThkOLjJ1Lw0JYqe0kz/6L71vbVmYch1u/MaTV6N7knLMwY6opHQwzn/Ed
Fxo8uffInIDH++wr5nltvjAS519vvivTpLtj+o9Ix43TkofYlDhc/1FaF1WM4aY=
=7qDG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#372703

FromMarek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com>
Date2016-09-25 07:28 -0700
Message-ID<WtOdnQh4letsQ3rKnZ2dnUU7-QudnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#372699
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> Best to use an inline signature.

How's this?

- -- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=pDIe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372704

From"Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid>
Date2016-09-25 14:34 +0000
Message-ID<fhjge8tw.oo@perch.invalid>
In reply to#372703
Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> Best to use an inline signature.
> 
> How's this?
> 
> - -- 
> Marek Novotny
> https://github.com/marek-novotny
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
> 
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
> MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
> 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
> kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
> AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
> IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
> pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
> glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
> EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
> pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
> /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
> 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
> =pDIe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Perfect, but I need your public key.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372706

FromMarek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com>
Date2016-09-25 07:45 -0700
Message-ID<_JidnVEznLubfnrKnZ2dnUU7-SvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#372704

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 09/25/2016 07:34 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote: On 09/25/2016
> 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>> Best to use an inline signature.
> 
> How's this?
> 
> 
> Perfect, but I need your public key.
> 

public key attached.

- -- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX5+MGAAoJEC9nkebvym+h+YwP/AnO1u1355zL3DVD0aWlhfSN
PRDAjcI5DEhh6NvkPvxcwGM6aZHPQWLWjKF33O2qItwRpZG+Q6NfWGdZbXA54hbK
nD9hZYWU0cp7ezyy0opRcT4WxMYn7Ph+kr++jLGUC7KUVApYohZ0YMFAvscdsHk9
eE3q8BQa7LwX5jggS5Y9DSuxSpZ5z4M08I10Nrbc5QVaKCEZGNLtnhg5ccy4yz9u
mTa4MRouFEoveKG3/+Irwapgc1pumbSOvIRB6mB4wIeCon5gXmDkRYkV8TglA21w
s1Is61OC1f2juPhYTfJEdHom5LZmcj+BX+uLSqkC1/QZHfLtrg3Yxc6cDIfOzH3e
8wuJ4ZSC1hwQ+QuXUrodjCgFdwy2RSXWbRK6invb6P8d5uiwaZdPnfwpMQdsKkgR
G4FBf+bF5j4jRSJBnWziS+1BKUGFDxakRTe8i80005TgecNhCrp+iEgC7CaeWXNe
VDGDE6H/Z4/lfpS+yVjmUyybk04pnyfTvH783jn/9fk66Abne6b2wuD9kVsBdYBT
V1PWZAeSSGlHeHmgK/TgEpPqKgkEXMrFjiML+LSTlTKVLsWSBD3vKvdsCwZI7bRp
63T93Uv0JzhO6WyR9zgI36Y1tXBMMZPs4O/rVsiQd6V86D6C1bhnEFpLjW2fUYLa
p3lp8mS9Ma+RzR1+qxEf
=3SR8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372708

FromSteve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>
Date2016-09-25 07:57 -0700
Message-ID<4c031c27-83a0-433a-9c8a-e8c86dddf97c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#372704
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> > 
> > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >> Best to use an inline signature.
> > 
> > How's this?
> > 
> > - -- 
> > Marek Novotny
> > https://github.com/marek-novotny
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v2
> > 
> > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
> > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
> > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
> > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
> > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
> > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
> > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
> > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
> > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
> > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
> > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
> > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
> > =pDIe
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> Perfect, but I need your public key.

I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372709

FromSteve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>
Date2016-09-25 08:02 -0700
Message-ID<5656bca6-5b05-4c0e-8f71-f22b17351389@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#372708
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> > Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA256
> > > 
> > > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> > >> Best to use an inline signature.
> > > 
> > > How's this?
> > > 
> > > - -- 
> > > Marek Novotny
> > > https://github.com/marek-novotny
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v2
> > > 
> > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
> > > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
> > > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
> > > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
> > > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
> > > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
> > > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
> > > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
> > > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
> > > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
> > > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
> > > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
> > > =pDIe
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 
> > Perfect, but I need your public key.
> 
> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?

It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.

<http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372712

FromMarek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com>
Date2016-09-25 15:22 +0000
Message-ID<hvGdnc68MrBZdnrKnZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#372709
On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> > Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > > Hash: SHA256
>> > > 
>> > > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> > >> Best to use an inline signature.
>> > > 
>> > > How's this?
>> > > 
>> > > - -- 
>> > > Marek Novotny
>> > > https://github.com/marek-novotny
>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > > Version: GnuPG v2
>> > > 
>> > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
>> > > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
>> > > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
>> > > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
>> > > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
>> > > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
>> > > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
>> > > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
>> > > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
>> > > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
>> > > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
>> > > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
>> > > =pDIe
>> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > 
>> > Perfect, but I need your public key.
>> 
>> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?
>
> It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.
>
><http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>
>

Oh that's interesting. I guess Google looks it up in the popular key servers where I have verified my GnuPG key already.

On your second question, yes. You need to now say, to yourself, that you
give that key whatever trust you put in my saying that is indeed me. And
once you do that it separates me from say someone else who claims to be
me but can't sign my key or makes a key of a similar name which you have
not trusted. 

So once you do this, you always have it. 

It's similar to what I am doing when you told me I was replying to your
forged entity. What I did in that case was I put you in my score file
with a +1 score. Trolls have a -9999 so I don't see them. But on your
posts I see a 1. So I know that the post I am replying to comes from
your account which I have established is indeed you. 

So in slrn I only see your posts now. Anyone forging you with a new
address for example will not show up with a +1 score. And that tells me
to add that *pretender* to the score file with a -9999 and filter them
out. 

I think the score file is easier, but apps like Thunderbird don't have a
good scoring system. If everyone used slrn this would be easy. On the
other hand I'm not quite there yet on configuring slrn with GnuPG. So
for now if I want to send a signed post I am using Thunderbird. I'll
have to play around with slrn some more. And for now I am doing that on
my local machine. I'll have to move that to my ssh server so I can
remote like I like doing if I am going to use slrn in that way. But I'm
not sure I find too much value in it as I'd guess most users aren't
setup for verification anyway. It would be good if everyone was, but
they're not. Scoring seems to be a more realistic method and many don't
even use that effectively. 

Maybe once I get everything setup and I practice is and understand it
all very well I might make a YouTube video about slrn and thunderbird,
uses of scoring in slrn for both approving and removing wanted and
unwanted posts in usenet. 

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372713

FromSteve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>
Date2016-09-25 08:38 -0700
Message-ID<1723d505-5bad-4c85-aaa2-296dce732a69@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#372712
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote:
> On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >> > Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> > > Hash: SHA256
> >> > > 
> >> > > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >> > >> Best to use an inline signature.
> >> > > 
> >> > > How's this?
> >> > > 
> >> > > - -- 
> >> > > Marek Novotny
> >> > > https://github.com/marek-novotny
> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> > > Version: GnuPG v2
> >> > > 
> >> > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
> >> > > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
> >> > > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
> >> > > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
> >> > > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
> >> > > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
> >> > > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
> >> > > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
> >> > > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
> >> > > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
> >> > > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
> >> > > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
> >> > > =pDIe
> >> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> > 
> >> > Perfect, but I need your public key.
> >> 
> >> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?
> >
> > It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.
> >
> ><http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>
> >
> 
> Oh that's interesting. I guess Google looks it up in the popular key servers where I have verified my GnuPG key already.
> 
> On your second question, yes. You need to now say, to yourself, that you
> give that key whatever trust you put in my saying that is indeed me. And
> once you do that it separates me from say someone else who claims to be
> me but can't sign my key or makes a key of a similar name which you have
> not trusted. 
> 
> So once you do this, you always have it. 
> 
> It's similar to what I am doing when you told me I was replying to your
> forged entity. What I did in that case was I put you in my score file
> with a +1 score. Trolls have a -9999 so I don't see them. But on your
> posts I see a 1. So I know that the post I am replying to comes from
> your account which I have established is indeed you. 
> 
> So in slrn I only see your posts now. Anyone forging you with a new
> address for example will not show up with a +1 score. And that tells me
> to add that *pretender* to the score file with a -9999 and filter them
> out. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

One thing that I have never seen spoofed is the Google acct. number so perhaps you can use it as a filtering criteria, too. Here's mine:

posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 

My gmail posts go back to 2009 (that I've seen, crackhead's forgeries using gmail only go back to 2012). Notice the posting acct. number on this response matches this post from 2009:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/C9FwjiytRoA/ftc2GG7-37AJ>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=sC4v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


> I think the score file is easier, but apps like Thunderbird don't have a
> good scoring system. If everyone used slrn this would be easy. On the
> other hand I'm not quite there yet on configuring slrn with GnuPG. So
> for now if I want to send a signed post I am using Thunderbird. I'll
> have to play around with slrn some more. And for now I am doing that on
> my local machine. I'll have to move that to my ssh server so I can
> remote like I like doing if I am going to use slrn in that way. But I'm
> not sure I find too much value in it as I'd guess most users aren't
> setup for verification anyway. It would be good if everyone was, but
> they're not. Scoring seems to be a more realistic method and many don't
> even use that effectively. 
> 
> Maybe once I get everything setup and I practice is and understand it
> all very well I might make a YouTube video about slrn and thunderbird,
> uses of scoring in slrn for both approving and removing wanted and
> unwanted posts in usenet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372717

From"Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid>
Date2016-09-25 15:58 +0000
Message-ID<ad3gaiid.jid@perch.invalid>
In reply to#372713
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote:
>> On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> >> > Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >> > > Hash: SHA256
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> >> > >> Best to use an inline signature.
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > How's this?
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > - -- 
>> >> > > Marek Novotny
>> >> > > https://github.com/marek-novotny
>> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >> > > Version: GnuPG v2
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
>> >> > > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
>> >> > > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
>> >> > > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
>> >> > > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
>> >> > > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
>> >> > > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
>> >> > > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
>> >> > > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
>> >> > > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
>> >> > > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
>> >> > > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
>> >> > > =pDIe
>> >> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >> > 
>> >> > Perfect, but I need your public key.
>> >> 
>> >> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?
>> >
>> > It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.
>> >
>> ><http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>
>> >
>> 
>> Oh that's interesting. I guess Google looks it up in the popular key servers where I have verified my GnuPG key already.
>> 
>> On your second question, yes. You need to now say, to yourself, that you
>> give that key whatever trust you put in my saying that is indeed me. And
>> once you do that it separates me from say someone else who claims to be
>> me but can't sign my key or makes a key of a similar name which you have
>> not trusted. 
>> 
>> So once you do this, you always have it. 
>> 
>> It's similar to what I am doing when you told me I was replying to your
>> forged entity. What I did in that case was I put you in my score file
>> with a +1 score. Trolls have a -9999 so I don't see them. But on your
>> posts I see a 1. So I know that the post I am replying to comes from
>> your account which I have established is indeed you. 
>> 
>> So in slrn I only see your posts now. Anyone forging you with a new
>> address for example will not show up with a +1 score. And that tells me
>> to add that *pretender* to the score file with a -9999 and filter them
>> out. 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> One thing that I have never seen spoofed is the Google acct. number so perhaps you can use it as a filtering criteria, too. Here's mine:
> 
> posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 
> 
> My gmail posts go back to 2009 (that I've seen, crackhead's forgeries using gmail only go back to 2012). Notice the posting acct. number on this response matches this post from 2009:
> 
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/C9FwjiytRoA/ftc2GG7-37AJ>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> 
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX5+9UAAoJELnOYK54exUCqOMP/AiBMj7DVoep+aTZfsYEwg7h
> tTwqKInwpmHwUjkZYu2m+kBBuXOZR47OwKWZpUCfnloN4pfL2cgTqmAHeDilVI+L
> 9sUw15rPd95n/5BDXezZnxzoL6n/8/GzHYmFqUJoKScaOxab4Odf97PDqVfEqiml
> G86egbR85z7deWiUNcl8Bq1zLtP17eSGy0sUmPMMDrbw/7lbGQ4ayA/ZqjfzXadx
> qmf3+WYUEvquDgXN4b6x9Ig+EzlIME0Ylp3I6COEFJ69Ozu3ZjwWDp1RWI0Eq4XP
> vV2I1GFq19AO02hAvJ/qZcWAHgYwhhlFmVWzoqbA1dSnDsCjLr0+xGaAUVcLuwjd
> qNdLSd1wrunCfUuotc6kUGyvj2Vy3zA5oWmLpHA4utjOrm5RlSyTaJHESOV08CAS
> X0YO+7LjGBxZ87U//Jfo0vB5u+ij91l7Zdsphf+eSNWvJ+DoUtimlvcP5o4Te1D9
> rKNmZ1QUMkl/Kjl9x70Q58XH8etkp9d2NHE1vVth5c9vsfAaNkJVHn7TIC79h4NE
> Kny8Zp0r+QCsKnqs+NYd9GPyhvGsGmoBzEneAOgs7l509EoCOB3+Lfam3D7OmdvD
> 97FL/nbKbmDE8n9H8gs1sAua3Yfwz8S7IpHN19GTh9GNCKU8F+orXTSzAPUaKNyp
> mMihyxG5fd2CFFGEQV8a
> =sC4v
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
>> I think the score file is easier, but apps like Thunderbird don't have a
>> good scoring system. If everyone used slrn this would be easy. On the
>> other hand I'm not quite there yet on configuring slrn with GnuPG. So
>> for now if I want to send a signed post I am using Thunderbird. I'll
>> have to play around with slrn some more. And for now I am doing that on
>> my local machine. I'll have to move that to my ssh server so I can
>> remote like I like doing if I am going to use slrn in that way. But I'm
>> not sure I find too much value in it as I'd guess most users aren't
>> setup for verification anyway. It would be good if everyone was, but
>> they're not. Scoring seems to be a more realistic method and many don't
>> even use that effectively. 
>> 
>> Maybe once I get everything setup and I practice is and understand it
>> all very well I might make a YouTube video about slrn and thunderbird,
>> uses of scoring in slrn for both approving and removing wanted and
>> unwanted posts in usenet. 
> 
> 
Do you have a new key now?
anon@lowtide:~$ gpg --verify steve.signed
gpg: Signature made Sun 25 Sep 2016 11:37:56 AM EDT using RSA key ID 787B1502
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
anon@lowtide:~$

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372719

FromSteve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>
Date2016-09-25 09:02 -0700
Message-ID<2c469cfb-e3d9-4d9b-90dd-3ec10a92c2e8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#372717
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:58:54 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote:
> >> On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
> >> >> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >> >> > Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >> > > Hash: SHA256
> >> >> > > 
> >> >> > > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> >> >> > >> Best to use an inline signature.
> >> >> > > 
> >> >> > > How's this?
> >> >> > > 
> >> >> > > - -- 
> >> >> > > Marek Novotny
> >> >> > > https://github.com/marek-novotny
> >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> >> > > Version: GnuPG v2
> >> >> > > 
> >> >> > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
> >> >> > > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
> >> >> > > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
> >> >> > > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
> >> >> > > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
> >> >> > > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
> >> >> > > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
> >> >> > > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
> >> >> > > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
> >> >> > > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
> >> >> > > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
> >> >> > > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
> >> >> > > =pDIe
> >> >> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Perfect, but I need your public key.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?
> >> >
> >> > It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.
> >> >
> >> ><http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Oh that's interesting. I guess Google looks it up in the popular key servers where I have verified my GnuPG key already.
> >> 
> >> On your second question, yes. You need to now say, to yourself, that you
> >> give that key whatever trust you put in my saying that is indeed me. And
> >> once you do that it separates me from say someone else who claims to be
> >> me but can't sign my key or makes a key of a similar name which you have
> >> not trusted. 
> >> 
> >> So once you do this, you always have it. 
> >> 
> >> It's similar to what I am doing when you told me I was replying to your
> >> forged entity. What I did in that case was I put you in my score file
> >> with a +1 score. Trolls have a -9999 so I don't see them. But on your
> >> posts I see a 1. So I know that the post I am replying to comes from
> >> your account which I have established is indeed you. 
> >> 
> >> So in slrn I only see your posts now. Anyone forging you with a new
> >> address for example will not show up with a +1 score. And that tells me
> >> to add that *pretender* to the score file with a -9999 and filter them
> >> out. 
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
> > 
> > One thing that I have never seen spoofed is the Google acct. number so perhaps you can use it as a filtering criteria, too. Here's mine:
> > 
> > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 
> > 
> > My gmail posts go back to 2009 (that I've seen, crackhead's forgeries using gmail only go back to 2012). Notice the posting acct. number on this response matches this post from 2009:
> > 
> > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/C9FwjiytRoA/ftc2GG7-37AJ>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> > 
> > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX5+9UAAoJELnOYK54exUCqOMP/AiBMj7DVoep+aTZfsYEwg7h
> > tTwqKInwpmHwUjkZYu2m+kBBuXOZR47OwKWZpUCfnloN4pfL2cgTqmAHeDilVI+L
> > 9sUw15rPd95n/5BDXezZnxzoL6n/8/GzHYmFqUJoKScaOxab4Odf97PDqVfEqiml
> > G86egbR85z7deWiUNcl8Bq1zLtP17eSGy0sUmPMMDrbw/7lbGQ4ayA/ZqjfzXadx
> > qmf3+WYUEvquDgXN4b6x9Ig+EzlIME0Ylp3I6COEFJ69Ozu3ZjwWDp1RWI0Eq4XP
> > vV2I1GFq19AO02hAvJ/qZcWAHgYwhhlFmVWzoqbA1dSnDsCjLr0+xGaAUVcLuwjd
> > qNdLSd1wrunCfUuotc6kUGyvj2Vy3zA5oWmLpHA4utjOrm5RlSyTaJHESOV08CAS
> > X0YO+7LjGBxZ87U//Jfo0vB5u+ij91l7Zdsphf+eSNWvJ+DoUtimlvcP5o4Te1D9
> > rKNmZ1QUMkl/Kjl9x70Q58XH8etkp9d2NHE1vVth5c9vsfAaNkJVHn7TIC79h4NE
> > Kny8Zp0r+QCsKnqs+NYd9GPyhvGsGmoBzEneAOgs7l509EoCOB3+Lfam3D7OmdvD
> > 97FL/nbKbmDE8n9H8gs1sAua3Yfwz8S7IpHN19GTh9GNCKU8F+orXTSzAPUaKNyp
> > mMihyxG5fd2CFFGEQV8a
> > =sC4v
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > 
> > 
> >> I think the score file is easier, but apps like Thunderbird don't have a
> >> good scoring system. If everyone used slrn this would be easy. On the
> >> other hand I'm not quite there yet on configuring slrn with GnuPG. So
> >> for now if I want to send a signed post I am using Thunderbird. I'll
> >> have to play around with slrn some more. And for now I am doing that on
> >> my local machine. I'll have to move that to my ssh server so I can
> >> remote like I like doing if I am going to use slrn in that way. But I'm
> >> not sure I find too much value in it as I'd guess most users aren't
> >> setup for verification anyway. It would be good if everyone was, but
> >> they're not. Scoring seems to be a more realistic method and many don't
> >> even use that effectively. 
> >> 
> >> Maybe once I get everything setup and I practice is and understand it
> >> all very well I might make a YouTube video about slrn and thunderbird,
> >> uses of scoring in slrn for both approving and removing wanted and
> >> unwanted posts in usenet. 
> > 
> > 
> Do you have a new key now?

It's not new, I made it when I made the other one (that I tossed, remember?). How do I give you the public key again?

> anon@lowtide:~$ gpg --verify steve.signed
> gpg: Signature made Sun 25 Sep 2016 11:37:56 AM EDT using RSA key ID 787B1502
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> anon@lowtide:~$

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372721

FromSteve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>
Date2016-09-25 09:05 -0700
Message-ID<f35137d6-a9cb-46ce-bb90-8eaaebebea0c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#372719
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:02:44 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:58:54 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote:
> > >> On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
> > >> >> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> > >> >> > Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >> >> > > Hash: SHA256
> > >> >> > > 
> > >> >> > > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> > >> >> > >> Best to use an inline signature.
> > >> >> > > 
> > >> >> > > How's this?
> > >> >> > > 
> > >> >> > > - -- 
> > >> >> > > Marek Novotny
> > >> >> > > https://github.com/marek-novotny
> > >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >> >> > > Version: GnuPG v2
> > >> >> > > 
> > >> >> > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
> > >> >> > > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
> > >> >> > > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
> > >> >> > > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
> > >> >> > > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
> > >> >> > > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
> > >> >> > > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
> > >> >> > > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
> > >> >> > > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
> > >> >> > > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
> > >> >> > > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
> > >> >> > > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
> > >> >> > > =pDIe
> > >> >> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >> >> > 
> > >> >> > Perfect, but I need your public key.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?
> > >> >
> > >> > It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.
> > >> >
> > >> ><http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>
> > >> >
> > >> 
> > >> Oh that's interesting. I guess Google looks it up in the popular key servers where I have verified my GnuPG key already.
> > >> 
> > >> On your second question, yes. You need to now say, to yourself, that you
> > >> give that key whatever trust you put in my saying that is indeed me. And
> > >> once you do that it separates me from say someone else who claims to be
> > >> me but can't sign my key or makes a key of a similar name which you have
> > >> not trusted. 
> > >> 
> > >> So once you do this, you always have it. 
> > >> 
> > >> It's similar to what I am doing when you told me I was replying to your
> > >> forged entity. What I did in that case was I put you in my score file
> > >> with a +1 score. Trolls have a -9999 so I don't see them. But on your
> > >> posts I see a 1. So I know that the post I am replying to comes from
> > >> your account which I have established is indeed you. 
> > >> 
> > >> So in slrn I only see your posts now. Anyone forging you with a new
> > >> address for example will not show up with a +1 score. And that tells me
> > >> to add that *pretender* to the score file with a -9999 and filter them
> > >> out. 
> > > 
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA512
> > > 
> > > One thing that I have never seen spoofed is the Google acct. number so perhaps you can use it as a filtering criteria, too. Here's mine:
> > > 
> > > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 
> > > 
> > > My gmail posts go back to 2009 (that I've seen, crackhead's forgeries using gmail only go back to 2012). Notice the posting acct. number on this response matches this post from 2009:
> > > 
> > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/C9FwjiytRoA/ftc2GG7-37AJ>
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> > > 
> > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX5+9UAAoJELnOYK54exUCqOMP/AiBMj7DVoep+aTZfsYEwg7h
> > > tTwqKInwpmHwUjkZYu2m+kBBuXOZR47OwKWZpUCfnloN4pfL2cgTqmAHeDilVI+L
> > > 9sUw15rPd95n/5BDXezZnxzoL6n/8/GzHYmFqUJoKScaOxab4Odf97PDqVfEqiml
> > > G86egbR85z7deWiUNcl8Bq1zLtP17eSGy0sUmPMMDrbw/7lbGQ4ayA/ZqjfzXadx
> > > qmf3+WYUEvquDgXN4b6x9Ig+EzlIME0Ylp3I6COEFJ69Ozu3ZjwWDp1RWI0Eq4XP
> > > vV2I1GFq19AO02hAvJ/qZcWAHgYwhhlFmVWzoqbA1dSnDsCjLr0+xGaAUVcLuwjd
> > > qNdLSd1wrunCfUuotc6kUGyvj2Vy3zA5oWmLpHA4utjOrm5RlSyTaJHESOV08CAS
> > > X0YO+7LjGBxZ87U//Jfo0vB5u+ij91l7Zdsphf+eSNWvJ+DoUtimlvcP5o4Te1D9
> > > rKNmZ1QUMkl/Kjl9x70Q58XH8etkp9d2NHE1vVth5c9vsfAaNkJVHn7TIC79h4NE
> > > Kny8Zp0r+QCsKnqs+NYd9GPyhvGsGmoBzEneAOgs7l509EoCOB3+Lfam3D7OmdvD
> > > 97FL/nbKbmDE8n9H8gs1sAua3Yfwz8S7IpHN19GTh9GNCKU8F+orXTSzAPUaKNyp
> > > mMihyxG5fd2CFFGEQV8a
> > > =sC4v
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> I think the score file is easier, but apps like Thunderbird don't have a
> > >> good scoring system. If everyone used slrn this would be easy. On the
> > >> other hand I'm not quite there yet on configuring slrn with GnuPG. So
> > >> for now if I want to send a signed post I am using Thunderbird. I'll
> > >> have to play around with slrn some more. And for now I am doing that on
> > >> my local machine. I'll have to move that to my ssh server so I can
> > >> remote like I like doing if I am going to use slrn in that way. But I'm
> > >> not sure I find too much value in it as I'd guess most users aren't
> > >> setup for verification anyway. It would be good if everyone was, but
> > >> they're not. Scoring seems to be a more realistic method and many don't
> > >> even use that effectively. 
> > >> 
> > >> Maybe once I get everything setup and I practice is and understand it
> > >> all very well I might make a YouTube video about slrn and thunderbird,
> > >> uses of scoring in slrn for both approving and removing wanted and
> > >> unwanted posts in usenet. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > Do you have a new key now?
> 
> It's not new, I made it when I made the other one (that I tossed, remember?). How do I give you the public key again?
> 
> > anon@lowtide:~$ gpg --verify steve.signed
> > gpg: Signature made Sun 25 Sep 2016 11:37:56 AM EDT using RSA key ID 787B1502
> > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> > anon@lowtide:~$




-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=YNhm
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372725

From"Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid>
Date2016-09-25 16:24 +0000
Message-ID<ahladfo3.99@perch.invalid>
In reply to#372721
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:02:44 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:58:54 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 9:22:50 AM UTC-6, Marek Novotny wrote:
>> > >> On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> > >> >> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> > >> >> > Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > >> >> > > Hash: SHA256
>> > >> >> > > 
>> > >> >> > > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> > >> >> > >> Best to use an inline signature.
>> > >> >> > > 
>> > >> >> > > How's this?
>> > >> >> > > 
>> > >> >> > > - -- 
>> > >> >> > > Marek Novotny
>> > >> >> > > https://github.com/marek-novotny
>> > >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > >> >> > > Version: GnuPG v2
>> > >> >> > > 
>> > >> >> > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
>> > >> >> > > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
>> > >> >> > > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
>> > >> >> > > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
>> > >> >> > > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
>> > >> >> > > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
>> > >> >> > > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
>> > >> >> > > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
>> > >> >> > > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
>> > >> >> > > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
>> > >> >> > > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
>> > >> >> > > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
>> > >> >> > > =pDIe
>> > >> >> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > >> >> > 
>> > >> >> > Perfect, but I need your public key.
>> > >> >> 
>> > >> >> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.
>> > >> >
>> > >> ><http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>
>> > >> >
>> > >> 
>> > >> Oh that's interesting. I guess Google looks it up in the popular key servers where I have verified my GnuPG key already.
>> > >> 
>> > >> On your second question, yes. You need to now say, to yourself, that you
>> > >> give that key whatever trust you put in my saying that is indeed me. And
>> > >> once you do that it separates me from say someone else who claims to be
>> > >> me but can't sign my key or makes a key of a similar name which you have
>> > >> not trusted. 
>> > >> 
>> > >> So once you do this, you always have it. 
>> > >> 
>> > >> It's similar to what I am doing when you told me I was replying to your
>> > >> forged entity. What I did in that case was I put you in my score file
>> > >> with a +1 score. Trolls have a -9999 so I don't see them. But on your
>> > >> posts I see a 1. So I know that the post I am replying to comes from
>> > >> your account which I have established is indeed you. 
>> > >> 
>> > >> So in slrn I only see your posts now. Anyone forging you with a new
>> > >> address for example will not show up with a +1 score. And that tells me
>> > >> to add that *pretender* to the score file with a -9999 and filter them
>> > >> out. 
>> > > 
>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > > Hash: SHA512
>> > > 
>> > > One thing that I have never seen spoofed is the Google acct. number so perhaps you can use it as a filtering criteria, too. Here's mine:
>> > > 
>> > > posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7 
>> > > 
>> > > My gmail posts go back to 2009 (that I've seen, crackhead's forgeries using gmail only go back to 2012). Notice the posting acct. number on this response matches this post from 2009:
>> > > 
>> > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/C9FwjiytRoA/ftc2GG7-37AJ>
>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
>> > > 
>> > > iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX5+9UAAoJELnOYK54exUCqOMP/AiBMj7DVoep+aTZfsYEwg7h
>> > > tTwqKInwpmHwUjkZYu2m+kBBuXOZR47OwKWZpUCfnloN4pfL2cgTqmAHeDilVI+L
>> > > 9sUw15rPd95n/5BDXezZnxzoL6n/8/GzHYmFqUJoKScaOxab4Odf97PDqVfEqiml
>> > > G86egbR85z7deWiUNcl8Bq1zLtP17eSGy0sUmPMMDrbw/7lbGQ4ayA/ZqjfzXadx
>> > > qmf3+WYUEvquDgXN4b6x9Ig+EzlIME0Ylp3I6COEFJ69Ozu3ZjwWDp1RWI0Eq4XP
>> > > vV2I1GFq19AO02hAvJ/qZcWAHgYwhhlFmVWzoqbA1dSnDsCjLr0+xGaAUVcLuwjd
>> > > qNdLSd1wrunCfUuotc6kUGyvj2Vy3zA5oWmLpHA4utjOrm5RlSyTaJHESOV08CAS
>> > > X0YO+7LjGBxZ87U//Jfo0vB5u+ij91l7Zdsphf+eSNWvJ+DoUtimlvcP5o4Te1D9
>> > > rKNmZ1QUMkl/Kjl9x70Q58XH8etkp9d2NHE1vVth5c9vsfAaNkJVHn7TIC79h4NE
>> > > Kny8Zp0r+QCsKnqs+NYd9GPyhvGsGmoBzEneAOgs7l509EoCOB3+Lfam3D7OmdvD
>> > > 97FL/nbKbmDE8n9H8gs1sAua3Yfwz8S7IpHN19GTh9GNCKU8F+orXTSzAPUaKNyp
>> > > mMihyxG5fd2CFFGEQV8a
>> > > =sC4v
>> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > >> I think the score file is easier, but apps like Thunderbird don't have a
>> > >> good scoring system. If everyone used slrn this would be easy. On the
>> > >> other hand I'm not quite there yet on configuring slrn with GnuPG. So
>> > >> for now if I want to send a signed post I am using Thunderbird. I'll
>> > >> have to play around with slrn some more. And for now I am doing that on
>> > >> my local machine. I'll have to move that to my ssh server so I can
>> > >> remote like I like doing if I am going to use slrn in that way. But I'm
>> > >> not sure I find too much value in it as I'd guess most users aren't
>> > >> setup for verification anyway. It would be good if everyone was, but
>> > >> they're not. Scoring seems to be a more realistic method and many don't
>> > >> even use that effectively. 
>> > >> 
>> > >> Maybe once I get everything setup and I practice is and understand it
>> > >> all very well I might make a YouTube video about slrn and thunderbird,
>> > >> uses of scoring in slrn for both approving and removing wanted and
>> > >> unwanted posts in usenet. 
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > Do you have a new key now?
>> 
>> It's not new, I made it when I made the other one (that I tossed, remember?). How do I give you the public key again?
>> 
>> > anon@lowtide:~$ gpg --verify steve.signed
>> > gpg: Signature made Sun 25 Sep 2016 11:37:56 AM EDT using RSA key ID 787B1502
>> > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
>> > anon@lowtide:~$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> 
> mQINBFU9d2ABEADKzdhcQTzjnTkwgXUVbmxDxCJeQn4Rz0xlMofaJaQF8LFJJzSo
> jmn5brzgLPr0n047ojkFjpdPYMQ3+T1/cksaLC9MWhC6x0reFSPmAwQjlPvMWFZz
> xmVsx6VhZLC/oK3iinGUCfVixcKEWwD4rKdR714GefAvonPu9xtSNx43Pm6XP+wz
> 1LXKez7Atyte7H/HvAuwKTZh8YhHd1PgkbBVYZC+5bUD1CoTFs+8Ii5pHBRjXz8r
> TM0eHFjL0InIj0ab8v7v3aoWAv5n9Jbb6fIGXULWEue1j2R8gf+2Iq+P82QUdyHm
> ptBUztqD4HF3KUIEteYYvXvqCvcOvfOxrPgjOS3yWF//P4JeKQmT32/nmEAneso1
> kWDznMMMqvon65UHgT06/oRixIL4zYeaN5THaXb9RNLnA6fTbkSPpJMjZNkx63qj
> rjzI5JjZhtpA5kitMxO3PzVUlBJec4mMuH85ak/rB97bOq3HnHqXnDVdwtjOr3RM
> sKP2BTOugo5yAQ9RwRnoHs625kimjzgwyaflK630rzaj0xO3kslWojzcp5WuYFoF
> GF4rTSVqOqUMPtNJM2ZmvfDzBjXZx9gxFEJPaFgY3KZJa+DFj0/HK0UzNe71k6t2
> wjsSxBm0p9To2yqis312Y8394xqueaLGCcCfJbkgfgKSwLuKBR0EZj5GUwARAQAB
> tDpTdGV2ZSBDYXJyb2xsIChEbyB5b3UgaGVhciBtZSBub3c/KSA8ZnJldHdpenpA
> Y29tY2FzdC5uZXQ+iQI9BBMBCgAnBQJVPXdgAhsDBQkHhh+ABQsJCAcDBRUKCQgL
> BRYCAwEAAh4BAheAAAoJELnOYK54exUC0cIP/18uqtLwppskovGsj29KCUDcMEDf
> no1Mj/b3LwxMF+0bHjA4JcWZ0WMKOuMkQONzItau6CFg8S8l4StqUJaoi8IpnN+j
> EQKZ+xvrTwzO2oyoNArkEb5C4SBKUi/jyOa48YQFqHBFIInsi6R+MKrFq5f9mO3V
> U72fRyAM+U1ZiLTjoHdDhZPZreA60U/c5AjUvFj7RwFW6T9Hk+8K5RDAxOhdQZY9
> z3ptmeRVDItlRx9AUSq9TC2/VJyx711/pFzc5ENiGSmp+glgDk9HcoJHu0flmO8G
> 8KXWwbMRoHAePzmwz5ftGw3V/1MaDfGKEvLJtv1ughYZRcRKK7fQAP6fayP9ELm4
> 1bjtrClTfsEWn227+DQ1KVW1ng9Cf1OhLpUJw7FeED0BG83u8QN5PXXLOVh2keFr
> SbwACKj4y7VudlWHeKiqNXi4C7oyWFc8pY5bPX7ylVyhoMzgf8jot05Y4DngnsV+
> wFk0L4vbhjT69+xXD+U9Kf3CSMNqRAW9UB5GDG51SzlpyYwX0I0ZxgRYJ2BryENa
> 70wsjFIaKF9NIMHuHNshq+Eydce8MuWviAneJn5G2sRV7X9+zMygArGYAiFo91rH
> C58JlphUTjJLdBNWu/+6CVD/8BK/KzwjjJRSxhsAabihm+jNTPY66RGx+pBjAVz2
> u6/5XrS4bwDyvJECuQINBFU9d2ABEAC3opjXYDrqtD7wksL8uvl1t6fh6NRw3N5K
> LHnNXRepgz7g2i1mlmqj5GHsF86kZ/zvgShdx2y9BOgd0+xYO9uvC2EO0cc9Phgs
> y2qzSZsRz5s+RbpwV0vJ9DzLckvqrM35FTIgwvq1d9Q6PmA39jyQ+X1LdqyBEziQ
> o2mbqN3O8XH0jXX/kvptzgcciZGkf6OboRz6ANVQKLOyaxrAqtRhSpbwuL2hfdTT
> bl52Yg8/Mgqw4+2D9x4k3smbIG2Oy3HZamNQuCNp2iPHMozERwYPbNGYJThcDPOL
> MjiDZCU110E3GnGbT2CZsT3AJXnoDXGRdK6WnD8xNBB8UdAl32EIP1EimRDmwPiU
> DPx4cO/eGailFoYQk5JsK70D5RzYrofRTWa8zw6spbRIOu0QWhnKRlJa9sMdDOg9
> yHRCHfZki16wKlmq7ivhu7xydbtrhJQEwnnLHs7cXB1t7u78keLN8Nh2MPFNZmEu
> jdOmNdJaaKdNReRDwPvOtvGMYSy7ej4HMVCfmqji4tg3K4Y5fjR+ZdDVBqGwkepx
> s9HzPPxvmQEDEpDBHoDAPvwTCQODDAY8wiyMMSjs7ilQ4bDg7t/X3rzzVXsnrKKy
> 9bwumqHTGcZd+Vevrgc6sra/HD1ZgFDnMs6boOPbsSJ9/wwWWWI60Cdt8/UIBfLq
> ORirx2Sj0wARAQABiQIlBBgBCgAPBQJVPXdgAhsMBQkHhh+AAAoJELnOYK54exUC
> tEUP/0lhzMrYY7uMqCTaoswuscIOxlLhONjr8cA2p5AXJunQUBKOipHuxwGPb7kJ
> GHYA6F1YtLDNnLzkyLUi0g5/1viBQMzmFsyOCjkQH6WUehdxQiYcVjdqbKYVYOKR
> gvmXpsCwbKj1vqWTPX92aOxyr8jANei7SK3RVOFCwKHWwZUVWa/v4er41zAKLaH6
> dUW3H2cvH801FRu4U6MCDPTXeOq9Kstb2Wo0SGdE8sj/t7kDUFavR6smwWc8gLI3
> +oL8sTvWg+vy+Sr+cvw9Hu7r8PauyIO2d5CuH4B6kgSfcniDjqiKGOXuLCKwUdbX
> 0IIsydUBSxoCbjkfYLIEOJAqyb8AVU6TUbzEL179QVyeQ+NdPGLL8A51pgF3vTzn
> fJIDUgFXbeRaoLPQunYSvzmYudqTIfgz38Qtk4ts/G83Bw4eTU1Yjj8fKcIgnEFB
> lDezT7lpQdnzAWpMngHbd8JXmTecAVwcvwMciHHMbuTnkIZqX90yXW+d/RwTq6ok
> 4K33X3E48EgX8wP/yjb0zyofY2yQh9G8BGmxM9mCU4Ey8cVlBDurVo6JvEodksFF
> xRRfbBWuM1+CxZAaKgKdyeHh6I8ccbiEu7Kul09gmTz49VPmuSLBtKxDMQL2b6MF
> iL1gk86/cwd6IvyeZ0Pd/AI4afmmoz79FMa5IJbl7rW9zYNK
> =YNhm
> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

I imported this comcast key.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372715

From"Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid>
Date2016-09-25 15:56 +0000
Message-ID<hajgue03gt.agji@perch.invalid>
In reply to#372712
Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
> On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>> > Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> > > Hash: SHA256
>>> > > 
>>> > > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>> > >> Best to use an inline signature.
>>> > > 
>>> > > How's this?
>>> > > 
>>> > > - -- 
>>> > > Marek Novotny
>>> > > https://github.com/marek-novotny
>>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> > > Version: GnuPG v2
>>> > > 
>>> > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
>>> > > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
>>> > > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
>>> > > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
>>> > > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
>>> > > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
>>> > > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
>>> > > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
>>> > > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
>>> > > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
>>> > > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
>>> > > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
>>> > > =pDIe
>>> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> > 
>>> > Perfect, but I need your public key.
>>> 
>>> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?
>>
>> It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.
>>
>><http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>
>>
> 
> Oh that's interesting. I guess Google looks it up in the popular key servers where I have verified my GnuPG key already.
> 
> On your second question, yes. You need to now say, to yourself, that you
> give that key whatever trust you put in my saying that is indeed me. And
> once you do that it separates me from say someone else who claims to be
> me but can't sign my key or makes a key of a similar name which you have
> not trusted. 
> 
> So once you do this, you always have it. 
> 
> It's similar to what I am doing when you told me I was replying to your
> forged entity. What I did in that case was I put you in my score file
> with a +1 score. Trolls have a -9999 so I don't see them. But on your
> posts I see a 1. So I know that the post I am replying to comes from
> your account which I have established is indeed you. 
> 
> So in slrn I only see your posts now. Anyone forging you with a new
> address for example will not show up with a +1 score. And that tells me
> to add that *pretender* to the score file with a -9999 and filter them
> out. 
> 
> I think the score file is easier, but apps like Thunderbird don't have a
> good scoring system. If everyone used slrn this would be easy. On the
> other hand I'm not quite there yet on configuring slrn with GnuPG. So
> for now if I want to send a signed post I am using Thunderbird. I'll
> have to play around with slrn some more. And for now I am doing that on
> my local machine. I'll have to move that to my ssh server so I can
> remote like I like doing if I am going to use slrn in that way. But I'm
> not sure I find too much value in it as I'd guess most users aren't
> setup for verification anyway. It would be good if everyone was, but
> they're not. Scoring seems to be a more realistic method and many don't
> even use that effectively. 
> 
> Maybe once I get everything setup and I practice is and understand it
> all very well I might make a YouTube video about slrn and thunderbird,
> uses of scoring in slrn for both approving and removing wanted and
> unwanted posts in usenet. 
> 

Your other message verifies btw.  I don't have anything set up in
tin to handle gpg, which is why it is such a pain in the ass with
gpg attachments.  I do all gpg stuff with the gpg cli.  I save
the message and gpg --verify it, etc.  I'll manually wrap a response
with a sig offline, etc.  (ascii armor everything and no attachments).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372722

FromMarek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com>
Date2016-09-25 16:10 +0000
Message-ID<0u2dnVZ-5cWLanrKnZ2dnUU7-KPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#372715
On 2016-09-25, Octavian W. Lagrange <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
> Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>> On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>> > Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>>>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> > > Hash: SHA256
>>>> > > 
>>>> > > On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>> > >> Best to use an inline signature.
>>>> > > 
>>>> > > How's this?
>>>> > > 
>>>> > > - -- 
>>>> > > Marek Novotny
>>>> > > https://github.com/marek-novotny
>>>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> > > Version: GnuPG v2
>>>> > > 
>>>> > > iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
>>>> > > MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
>>>> > > 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
>>>> > > kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
>>>> > > AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
>>>> > > IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
>>>> > > pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
>>>> > > glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
>>>> > > EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
>>>> > > pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
>>>> > > /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
>>>> > > 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
>>>> > > =pDIe
>>>> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> > 
>>>> > Perfect, but I need your public key.
>>>> 
>>>> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?
>>>
>>> It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.
>>>
>>><http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>
>>>
>> 
>> Oh that's interesting. I guess Google looks it up in the popular key servers where I have verified my GnuPG key already.
>> 
>> On your second question, yes. You need to now say, to yourself, that you
>> give that key whatever trust you put in my saying that is indeed me. And
>> once you do that it separates me from say someone else who claims to be
>> me but can't sign my key or makes a key of a similar name which you have
>> not trusted. 
>> 
>> So once you do this, you always have it. 
>> 
>> It's similar to what I am doing when you told me I was replying to your
>> forged entity. What I did in that case was I put you in my score file
>> with a +1 score. Trolls have a -9999 so I don't see them. But on your
>> posts I see a 1. So I know that the post I am replying to comes from
>> your account which I have established is indeed you. 
>> 
>> So in slrn I only see your posts now. Anyone forging you with a new
>> address for example will not show up with a +1 score. And that tells me
>> to add that *pretender* to the score file with a -9999 and filter them
>> out. 
>> 
>> I think the score file is easier, but apps like Thunderbird don't have a
>> good scoring system. If everyone used slrn this would be easy. On the
>> other hand I'm not quite there yet on configuring slrn with GnuPG. So
>> for now if I want to send a signed post I am using Thunderbird. I'll
>> have to play around with slrn some more. And for now I am doing that on
>> my local machine. I'll have to move that to my ssh server so I can
>> remote like I like doing if I am going to use slrn in that way. But I'm
>> not sure I find too much value in it as I'd guess most users aren't
>> setup for verification anyway. It would be good if everyone was, but
>> they're not. Scoring seems to be a more realistic method and many don't
>> even use that effectively. 
>> 
>> Maybe once I get everything setup and I practice is and understand it
>> all very well I might make a YouTube video about slrn and thunderbird,
>> uses of scoring in slrn for both approving and removing wanted and
>> unwanted posts in usenet. 
>> 
>
> Your other message verifies btw.  I don't have anything set up in
> tin to handle gpg, which is why it is such a pain in the ass with
> gpg attachments.  I do all gpg stuff with the gpg cli.  I save
> the message and gpg --verify it, etc.  I'll manually wrap a response
> with a sig offline, etc.  (ascii armor everything and no attachments).

Yeah, I don't really use Thunderbird though. Although I went to the
movies yesterday and saw that Snowden film. I already buy my Dell
Laptops without a camera in the bezel, and after watching that film, I'm
glad I do that. Anyway, setting GnuPG is a good thing and I guess I can
use it once in a while if I need to. 

Maybe I can get you to switch to slrn. There is a macro you can use to
do this for you, but I will have to seek some help on getting the macro
to interact with key server. I played with it last night but decided to
try Thunderbird first since it is easier and then if that is successful
I'd consider moving forward with slrn configuration. 

I could run thunderbird via X window, but I like the console 100 times
better for usenet. Everytime I use that GUI I feel like I am missing
everything... I don't know how anyone deals with Thunderbird as a usenet
client. Horrible. 

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372757

FromGreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com>
Date2016-09-25 12:28 -0600
Message-ID<ns950n$cj9$7@dont-email.me>
In reply to#372712
On 09/25/2016 09:22 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
> On 2016-09-25, Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:57:37 AM UTC-6, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 8:34:22 AM UTC-6, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>> Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/25/2016 07:18 AM, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>>>> Best to use an inline signature.
>>>>>
>>>>> How's this?
>>>>>
>>>>> - --
>>>>> Marek Novotny
>>>>> https://github.com/marek-novotny
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>> Version: GnuPG v2
>>>>>
>>>>> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX597wAAoJEC9nkebvym+hwIwP/A0RzbBWgVrFuOaoaHzz5G5A
>>>>> MuzPV2r1gDeJJhmAInSRp24cdBKFNgcmt0+yWh0x7wL7IByL9NhAICppCuJWf6AP
>>>>> 4vFJX3oj9d4MGD9HqXc+GV+/4rn5gPjsedEQVT+dIFgrUTYKypYSFSVsppolMAtP
>>>>> kiEpcBh8nOLsj+myNy4fH0rGUtLoeqWVLktpYVvdaooTcoUc27f4l0vD0Zsikcg/
>>>>> AnLqwjenZSBlDb62nRYJOrzb6ro5vQ3zCJRwIUIQGx8qtO5C6lJldIXu9ImA+F/d
>>>>> IM5Cw2UibuX2iSqwmR4e/13VeJCJg815rb90vkGxqFEFrXUe6ISog3yqRDkiB7iu
>>>>> pEdK0jL+51UeqOmBB4XpKF74ABD2o9O7/xgFPXW0P8Y/kBjoM6mDXni2/WG//4YQ
>>>>> glLutlMqLqI5d/9R7XeMTBspral3L9tFc2bS2l6ZZDnmWPnXyKvWmHMIBmfNyRWD
>>>>> EfK2yjL+VLeepnhFlHuLUZO8EdtRHp7tNX0mDZ1a8NwfHd67gD2taPmSqoFMX1vH
>>>>> pbyCntHGi5tjRDExS4nxtrnUNztNH4yZKrHzfiSkkTSyXSI8rK5tiFh8xh4IyOh0
>>>>> /9tvEP1rPHoU5d7IXPlT8nqtNcyBTZkd9c66lQXuaUmn6WcOSeXrdOAmPDSY9PM/
>>>>> 6pBVZdla7vI9xw6RiBVt
>>>>> =pDIe
>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>
>>>> Perfect, but I need your public key.
>>>
>>> I just checked his here and it said it verified. How did that happen without me doing anything? Because he reg'd it?
>>
>> It does say "Undefined trust", though... but I assume that means I need to go manually 'define' it.
>>
>> <http://imgur.com/a/p5np5>
>>
>
> Oh that's interesting. I guess Google looks it up in the popular key servers where I have verified my GnuPG key already.
>
> On your second question, yes. You need to now say, to yourself, that you
> give that key whatever trust you put in my saying that is indeed me. And
> once you do that it separates me from say someone else who claims to be
> me but can't sign my key or makes a key of a similar name which you have
> not trusted.
>
> So once you do this, you always have it.
>
> It's similar to what I am doing when you told me I was replying to your
> forged entity. What I did in that case was I put you in my score file
> with a +1 score. Trolls have a -9999 so I don't see them. But on your
> posts I see a 1. So I know that the post I am replying to comes from
> your account which I have established is indeed you.
>
> So in slrn I only see your posts now. Anyone forging you with a new
> address for example will not show up with a +1 score. And that tells me
> to add that *pretender* to the score file with a -9999 and filter them
> out.
>
> I think the score file is easier, but apps like Thunderbird don't have a
> good scoring system. If everyone used slrn this would be easy. On the
> other hand I'm not quite there yet on configuring slrn with GnuPG. So
> for now if I want to send a signed post I am using Thunderbird. I'll
> have to play around with slrn some more. And for now I am doing that on
> my local machine. I'll have to move that to my ssh server so I can
> remote like I like doing if I am going to use slrn in that way. But I'm
> not sure I find too much value in it as I'd guess most users aren't
> setup for verification anyway. It would be good if everyone was, but
> they're not. Scoring seems to be a more realistic method and many don't
> even use that effectively.
>
> Maybe once I get everything setup and I practice is and understand it
> all very well I might make a YouTube video about slrn and thunderbird,
> uses of scoring in slrn for both approving and removing wanted and
> unwanted posts in usenet.
>

Now that would be slick.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web