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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #373686 > unrolled thread

Public vs Private Key Tutorial

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

Contents

  Public vs Private Key Tutorial Bozzo Rink <bozzo@graduate.org> - 2016-09-30 14:29 +0000
    Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 16:50 +0200
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-30 08:11 -0700
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-30 08:11 -0700
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 12:05 -0400
        Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 19:05 +0200
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 20:12 +0200
            Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 21:09 +0200
              Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-30 20:50 +0000
                Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-01 01:12 +0200
            Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 16:17 -0400
              Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-30 20:22 +0000
                Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 16:32 -0400
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 14:13 -0400
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-30 17:22 +0000
        Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 19:47 +0200
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-30 17:59 +0000
            Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 21:05 +0200
              Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 21:40 +0200
                Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-01 00:40 +0200
              Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 16:21 -0400
            Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 18:04 -0400
            Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-09-30 20:22 -0400
              Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-10-01 00:37 +0000
              Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-01 14:46 +0200
                Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 09:56 -0700
                  Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-11-01 17:40 -0400
                    Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 14:43 -0700
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 21:04 +0200
            Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 21:39 +0200
              Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 16:24 -0400
              Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-30 20:48 +0000
                Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 23:00 +0200
                  Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-30 21:29 +0000
                    Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 23:46 +0200
                      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-30 21:51 +0000
                  Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 17:52 -0400
                Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 17:47 -0400
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 16:13 -0400
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-09-30 20:20 -0400
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-30 20:01 -0600
    Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:54 -0700
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-09-30 16:58 +0200
        Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-30 08:11 -0700
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 12:05 -0400
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-30 17:24 +0000
        Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 16:09 -0400
    Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-30 08:45 -0700
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-09-30 22:42 +0000
        Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-01 03:09 +0000
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-01 09:33 -0400
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 09:22 -0700
    Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-09-30 12:03 -0400
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:10 -0700
        Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:21 -0700
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:27 -0700
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:09 -0700
          Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-30 20:16 -0600
        Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-09-30 20:15 -0600
      Re: Public vs Private Key Tutorial Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-30 09:19 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#373793

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

On 2016-09-30 3:05 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
> 
>> On 9/30/16, 10:59 AM, in article hjagjei9t.t4@perch.invalid, 
>> "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Köhlmann 
>>>>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser (Bozzo Rink) 
>>>>>> babbled:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Does anyone have a link to setting up public and 
>>>>>>> private keys using Safari and Microsoft Entourage?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Poor Snit Michael Glasser.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Clueless as always. And *you* claim to know *anything*
>>>>>> at all about technical things?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How come that you always claim that you want to "talk 
>>>>>> about technology". And *every* time that is done you
>>>>>> fail miserably. Pissed because you can't read in COLA
>>>>>> now?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Peter, join the fun.  Give use a public key.
>>>> 
>>>> No. I have *always* posted with my own name, because I 
>>>> actually stand to the words I wrote. And for the same reason 
>>>> I *never* post encrypted in a public group. Not even signed, 
>>>> as that is next to useless.
>>> 
>>> Suit yourself.  Just so everybody knows the gpg group is
>>> closed to no one.  Well, almost no one. :)  If you ever fell
>>> like joining in, just post a key.
>>> 
>> Seriously, why don't you guys just email? Comes down to you want 
>> to play grade school spy... but it is self-defeating. The
>> purpose of your trolling is to get attention: and you can only do
>> that if you have your trolling easy to read.
>> 
>> 
> Well, it *is* easy to read. Just get the public key

LOL watching the Prescott Parasite go crazy is hilarious.


- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX7slhAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uLzwH/190d2jLrKrIGrvJID/K5Nk+
f7OUrtBtOtygEbjy2iC7pFSaDLMkzE/mnnN3FY0O0X6g2TIvHIyIC4jiusRH6ht+
YoPvNP8XAr44CYeimI4/dn35dfDv+p8okDXv317vGMlm+JyTYadiyO8e4dtq60gw
Sjlc6D7kCGkcQuKBFt+jqroDGcn9LyBJU0AUsnLGDtj/3NQlPcRRxvPKoxzWSKvl
xX01skZxgOv/itmxG4KqhQjGnsbvOTLjy71ff1WqGx5iN3JgMRUrhX53GTHxWeUq
DAxGmObh07pjoYND0cJlXs3DFNwDaTmpHAiUsXaWO7psK62YYB8qziWf/MrSf6c=
=XeDW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#373840

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

On 2016-09-30 5:49 PM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <hjagjei9t.t4@perch.invalid>, Octavian W. Lagrange
> wrote:
> 
>>> Peter Köhlmann: No. I have *always* posted with my own name,
>>> because I actually stand to the words I wrote. And for the same
>>> reason I *never* post encrypted in a public group. Not even
>>> signed, as that is next to useless.
>> 
>> Suit yourself. Just so everybody knows the gpg group is closed to
>> no one. Well, almost no one. :) If you ever fell like joining in,
>> just post a key.
> 
> It's actually a pretty effective way to keep cola on topic - shut
> Snit out. :)

This is probably the best idea the group's users have ever had... it's
too bad that Peter the Klöwn doesn't want to join the party.


- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX7uFTAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uLc4IAIJwwORfesb7XsTd7eoTRFjb
LAWY+g9KzlZVAx1dIC/f2ZacMu7uqVEjAzpLqXerF8raQ+1gFjSI/1+B6Tkimzic
85jGkzu9IsHGmmqORvFU4z5fm1OfV0PHxsqSa0nC2uvQrEHqH9euyPsk2j+0DTJR
DiQCBDvNanp4E6paFbClX4prqiNMITAElwqTiSlbrLT2QtIg49cNPp2Mh3lMBGVY
1jNbjSVDdl8ZmtaKcfMRCH2twi6BoXxxrhbM3K/osyMVXasYh6IrWcZ/UvW6Crva
v9m7m+YPLwtQCNiuThbgliDx9JZM1DVSUU8+jw70H4diQwa/P58XiQbh83qVmyY=
=FFos
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#373885

Sandman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> In article <hjagjei9t.t4@perch.invalid>, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>
>> > Peter Köhlmann:
>> > No. I have *always* posted with my own name, because I actually
>> > stand to the words I wrote. And for the same reason I *never* post
>> > encrypted in a public group. Not even signed, as that is next to
>> > useless.
>> 
>> Suit yourself. Just so everybody knows the gpg group is closed to no
>> one. Well, almost no one. :) If you ever fell like joining in, just
>> post a key.
>
> It's actually a pretty effective way to keep cola on topic - shut Snit out. :)

You don't encryption to shut that little shart out.

All you are doing is shutting out people who don't think key-signing
is appropriate in a public, unmoderated newsgroup.

And we still get to see the nymshifts from that asswipe, regardless
of what you do.

It's a fun exercise, like calculating hermitians.

-- 
It is so very hard to be an
on-your-own-take-care-of-yourself-because-there-is-no-one-else-to-do-it-for-you
grown-up.

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

#373891

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Sandman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> In article <hjagjei9t.t4@perch.invalid>, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>
>>> > Peter Köhlmann:
>>> > No. I have *always* posted with my own name, because I actually
>>> > stand to the words I wrote. And for the same reason I *never* post
>>> > encrypted in a public group. Not even signed, as that is next to
>>> > useless.
>>> 
>>> Suit yourself. Just so everybody knows the gpg group is closed to no
>>> one. Well, almost no one. :) If you ever fell like joining in, just
>>> post a key.
>>
>> It's actually a pretty effective way to keep cola on topic - shut Snit out. :)
> 
> You don't encryption to shut that little shart out.
> 
> All you are doing is shutting out people who don't think key-signing
> is appropriate in a public, unmoderated newsgroup.
> 

I don't sign my messages.


> And we still get to see the nymshifts from that asswipe, regardless
> of what you do.
> 

Neither he nor his nymshifts will ever see a single encrypted message.
Everyone else will be able to read them but him and his socks.

> It's a fun exercise, like calculating hermitians.
> 

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

#373962

William Poaster wrote:

> On 1/10/2016 01:22 in comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom posted:
> 
>> Sandman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> In article <hjagjei9t.t4@perch.invalid>, Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Peter Köhlmann:
>>>> > No. I have *always* posted with my own name, because I actually
>>>> > stand to the words I wrote. And for the same reason I *never* post
>>>> > encrypted in a public group. Not even signed, as that is next to
>>>> > useless.
>>>> 
>>>> Suit yourself. Just so everybody knows the gpg group is closed to no
>>>> one. Well, almost no one. :) If you ever fell like joining in, just
>>>> post a key.
>>>
>>> It's actually a pretty effective way to keep cola on topic - shut Snit
>>> out. :)
>>
>> You don't encryption to shut that little shart out.
>>
>> All you are doing is shutting out people who don't think key-signing
>> is appropriate in a public, unmoderated newsgroup.
>>
>> And we still get to see the nymshifts from that asswipe, regardless
>> of what you do.
> 
> Well I don't. I have all his nymshifting bases (googlegroups, dizum etc)
> covered in the KF. I learned how to do that when Flatfarce was
> nymshifting, & believe me compared to him, Glasser is an *amateur*.
> 

Still, flatfish was detected nearly always after a few posts, often 
directly.
But yes, Snit Michael Glasser is utterly incompetent with his nymshifting. 
He must be screaming with rage because he has no idea what gives him away

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

#378909

On 10/1/16, 5:46 AM, in article nsob7c$6b7$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>>> You don't encryption to shut that little shart out.
>>> 
>>> All you are doing is shutting out people who don't think key-signing
>>> is appropriate in a public, unmoderated newsgroup.
>>> 
>>> And we still get to see the nymshifts from that asswipe, regardless
>>> of what you do.
>> 
>> Well I don't. I have all his nymshifting bases (googlegroups, dizum etc)
>> covered in the KF. I learned how to do that when Flatfarce was
>> nymshifting, & believe me compared to him, Glasser is an *amateur*.
>> 
> 
> Still, flatfish was detected nearly always after a few posts, often
> directly.
> But yes, Snit Michael Glasser is utterly incompetent with his nymshifting.
> He must be screaming with rage because he has no idea what gives him away

I was not even gone a day and Peter was fantasizing about seeing me.
Amazing.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#378981

On 2016-11-01 12:56 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 10/1/16, 5:46 AM, in article nsob7c$6b7$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>>> You don't encryption to shut that little shart out.
>>>>
>>>> All you are doing is shutting out people who don't think key-signing
>>>> is appropriate in a public, unmoderated newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> And we still get to see the nymshifts from that asswipe, regardless
>>>> of what you do.
>>>
>>> Well I don't. I have all his nymshifting bases (googlegroups, dizum etc)
>>> covered in the KF. I learned how to do that when Flatfarce was
>>> nymshifting, & believe me compared to him, Glasser is an *amateur*.
>>>
>>
>> Still, flatfish was detected nearly always after a few posts, often
>> directly.
>> But yes, Snit Michael Glasser is utterly incompetent with his nymshifting.
>> He must be screaming with rage because he has no idea what gives him away
> 
> I was not even gone a day and Peter was fantasizing about seeing me.
> Amazing.

He especially enjoys the thought of you with sauerkraut on the side.


-- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Proud libertarian, unapologetic nerd, author, gamer, beast-mode teacher
and silver-tongued heel
Fingerprint: e58428b2633833a3b0c9bb7e40819166642245b7
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

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

#378982

On 11/1/16, 2:40 PM, in article nvb23i$b9k$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<.m@nsn.s> wrote:

> On 2016-11-01 12:56 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 10/1/16, 5:46 AM, in article nsob7c$6b7$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> You don't encryption to shut that little shart out.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All you are doing is shutting out people who don't think key-signing
>>>>> is appropriate in a public, unmoderated newsgroup.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And we still get to see the nymshifts from that asswipe, regardless
>>>>> of what you do.
>>>> 
>>>> Well I don't. I have all his nymshifting bases (googlegroups, dizum etc)
>>>> covered in the KF. I learned how to do that when Flatfarce was
>>>> nymshifting, & believe me compared to him, Glasser is an *amateur*.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Still, flatfish was detected nearly always after a few posts, often
>>> directly.
>>> But yes, Snit Michael Glasser is utterly incompetent with his nymshifting.
>>> He must be screaming with rage because he has no idea what gives him away
>> 
>> I was not even gone a day and Peter was fantasizing about seeing me.
>> Amazing.
> 
> He especially enjoys the thought of you with sauerkraut on the side.
> 

I do NOT want a look into his fantasies about me. Ever!

:)


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#373779

The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:

> On 9/30/16, 10:47 AM, in article nsm8eo$jki$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>> 
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser (Bozzo Rink) babbled:
>>>> 
>>>>> Does anyone have a link to setting up public and private keys using
>>>>> Safari and Microsoft Entourage?
>>>> 
>>>> Poor Snit Michael Glasser.
>>>> 
>>>> Clueless as always. And *you* claim to know *anything* at all about
>>>> technical things?
>>>> 
>>>> How come that you always claim that you want to "talk about
>>>> technology". And *every* time that is done you fail miserably. Pissed
>>>> because you can't read in COLA now?
>>> 
>>> Peter, join the fun.  Give use a public key.
>> 
>> No. I have *always* posted with my own name, because I actually stand to
>> the words I wrote.
>> And for the same reason I *never* post encrypted in a public group. Not
>> even signed, as that is next to useless.
> 
> They want to play grade school super spy. If the goal was to have others
> not read their messages they would email.
> 
 
The "goal" is to annoy you. And it worked perfectly well. You are throwing 
hissy-fits, are foaming with anger and still can't do anything about it.

All because you are utterly incompetent at everything "technical"

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

#373782

The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:

> On 9/30/16, 12:04 PM, in article nsmd0d$3th$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> The "goal" is to annoy you.
> 
> Sadly I believe you... the goal of you and your herd is to annoy those who
> are not a part of your herd. Even when the focus is even slightly on tech,
> such as how to use encryption, all you guys really want is to find a way
> to annoy others. It is a sickness with you.
> 
> But, and I mean this, I appreciate you finally being honest about it. It
> is what I have been saying for a long time.
> 
> Meanwhile I would love to see a greater focus on technology.
> 

Idiot. This has been *all* about technology. And you failed miserably. As 
you always do when it comes to real technology and not your typical bullshit 
about converting kooking websites to PDF to send them via mail or other 
lunatic tripe

Those posts show *every time* how utterly incompetent you are, and you know 
that as well. They show your shameless lies when you claim that you rather 
"talk about technology". You can't, and it is shown here brightly lit

Don't you think that sending of encrypted posts would stop at once if you 
would be able to hire someone knowledgeable about technology to set up your 
rig for PGP? Your problem is that you are broke, and nobody having any 
selfrespect would work for you, paid or not

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

#373795

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

On 2016-09-30 3:39 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
> 
>> On 9/30/16, 12:04 PM, in article nsmd0d$3th$2@dont-email.me,
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> The "goal" is to annoy you.
>> 
>> Sadly I believe you... the goal of you and your herd is to annoy
>> those who are not a part of your herd. Even when the focus is
>> even slightly on tech, such as how to use encryption, all you
>> guys really want is to find a way to annoy others. It is a
>> sickness with you.
>> 
>> But, and I mean this, I appreciate you finally being honest about
>> it. It is what I have been saying for a long time.
>> 
>> Meanwhile I would love to see a greater focus on technology.
>> 
> 
> Idiot. This has been *all* about technology. And you failed
> miserably. As you always do when it comes to real technology and
> not your typical bullshit about converting kooking websites to PDF
> to send them via mail or other lunatic tripe
> 
> Those posts show *every time* how utterly incompetent you are, and
> you know that as well. They show your shameless lies when you claim
> that you rather "talk about technology". You can't, and it is shown
> here brightly lit
> 
> Don't you think that sending of encrypted posts would stop at once
> if you would be able to hire someone knowledgeable about technology
> to set up your rig for PGP? Your problem is that you are broke, and
> nobody having any selfrespect would work for you, paid or not

ROFLMAO.

Peter the Klöwn just made a series of funny. That is classic.

The thing is, even if he sets up PGP, we would all have to explicitly
choose to allow him to be able to decrypt the content. If one or all
of us ignore his public key or choose not to select him before the
process of decryption, he _still_ won't be able to read our content.
He will have to settle for being schooled by GreyCloud and insulted by
you as the only possible COLA activities.


- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEbBAEBCAAGBQJX7soMAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uZWUH+LOpAw2X8A7H247XDiGtvYCY
LwXungo6QxuKuOS37Zm0x5v5qEVE04c0DZYWmQVc6bIJMQDcqW/474UfN23IfkP8
oOS8OPD4ruN5PTlqXZ0eT9braW8OzBs0DiqHmzYeURPct/zwIUKcvVaKV7uIi6zK
PUh097WKDUkbjCZTVSKk3Y/ZVWBa8k7KEIV85cQsLNiZZucqtQ/sG1LZ5Oei456T
S3PsYzh6sjWA2zYNKhZqqiDThLk3yb3TGfX98vPgbwitN5b0EvrLmHWnldTq70ON
QJZdwDx+ErInbLR+8099a+Xx82dVeXGkI03Zg1OhuCI6rhDs3hbO9vmO1biY+w==
=d4K6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#373810

On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>
>> On 9/30/16, 12:04 PM, in article nsmd0d$3th$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> The "goal" is to annoy you.
>> 
>> Sadly I believe you... the goal of you and your herd is to annoy those who
>> are not a part of your herd. Even when the focus is even slightly on tech,
>> such as how to use encryption, all you guys really want is to find a way
>> to annoy others. It is a sickness with you.
>> 
>> But, and I mean this, I appreciate you finally being honest about it. It
>> is what I have been saying for a long time.
>> 
>> Meanwhile I would love to see a greater focus on technology.
>> 
>
> Idiot. This has been *all* about technology. And you failed miserably. As 
> you always do when it comes to real technology and not your typical bullshit 
> about converting kooking websites to PDF to send them via mail or other 
> lunatic tripe
>
> Those posts show *every time* how utterly incompetent you are, and you know 
> that as well. They show your shameless lies when you claim that you rather 
> "talk about technology". You can't, and it is shown here brightly lit

+1

> Don't you think that sending of encrypted posts would stop at once if you 
> would be able to hire someone knowledgeable about technology to set up your 
> rig for PGP? Your problem is that you are broke, and nobody having any 
> selfrespect would work for you, paid or not

Setting up gpg won't help him. He'd need a public key and each member
would have to accept it and commit to encrypting against it. If I encrypt
against Owl's public key only, then only owl can read it. So unlike the
group being open and unmoderated, the encryption lets the poster decide
who can read the post. It's essentially a white-list. 

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

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

#373814

Marek Novotny wrote:

> On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>
>>> On 9/30/16, 12:04 PM, in article nsmd0d$3th$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The "goal" is to annoy you.
>>> 
>>> Sadly I believe you... the goal of you and your herd is to annoy those
>>> who are not a part of your herd. Even when the focus is even slightly on
>>> tech, such as how to use encryption, all you guys really want is to find
>>> a way to annoy others. It is a sickness with you.
>>> 
>>> But, and I mean this, I appreciate you finally being honest about it. It
>>> is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile I would love to see a greater focus on technology.
>>> 
>>
>> Idiot. This has been *all* about technology. And you failed miserably. As
>> you always do when it comes to real technology and not your typical
>> bullshit about converting kooking websites to PDF to send them via mail
>> or other lunatic tripe
>>
>> Those posts show *every time* how utterly incompetent you are, and you
>> know that as well. They show your shameless lies when you claim that you
>> rather "talk about technology". You can't, and it is shown here brightly
>> lit
> 
> +1
> 
>> Don't you think that sending of encrypted posts would stop at once if you
>> would be able to hire someone knowledgeable about technology to set up
>> your rig for PGP? Your problem is that you are broke, and nobody having
>> any selfrespect would work for you, paid or not
> 
> Setting up gpg won't help him. He'd need a public key and each member
> would have to accept it and commit to encrypting against it. If I encrypt
> against Owl's public key only, then only owl can read it. So unlike the
> group being open and unmoderated, the encryption lets the poster decide
> who can read the post. It's essentially a white-list.
> 

The lying imbecile would try to show up as someone new and post reasonably 
for two or three weeks to get accepting as being genuine.
It would be a nearly impossible feat for that lunatic cretin, but he would 
try. He has shown restraint in CSMA also, at least for a while

We would try to get on that list, and then the trolling would start all 
over.
Until new keys would have been generated, but Snit Michael Glasser would see 
that as a "victory" of sorts.
The way it is now is the worst imaginable for him. He can't read the posts, 
he is left out in the cold and he can do absolutely nothing about it.

Even his lame attempts of activating his socks are so openly declaring 
defeat that he had better left them in his stinking ass

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

#373823

On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Marek Novotny wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>>
>>>> On 9/30/16, 12:04 PM, in article nsmd0d$3th$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The "goal" is to annoy you.
>>>> 
>>>> Sadly I believe you... the goal of you and your herd is to annoy those
>>>> who are not a part of your herd. Even when the focus is even slightly on
>>>> tech, such as how to use encryption, all you guys really want is to find
>>>> a way to annoy others. It is a sickness with you.
>>>> 
>>>> But, and I mean this, I appreciate you finally being honest about it. It
>>>> is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile I would love to see a greater focus on technology.
>>>> 
>>>
>>> Idiot. This has been *all* about technology. And you failed miserably. As
>>> you always do when it comes to real technology and not your typical
>>> bullshit about converting kooking websites to PDF to send them via mail
>>> or other lunatic tripe
>>>
>>> Those posts show *every time* how utterly incompetent you are, and you
>>> know that as well. They show your shameless lies when you claim that you
>>> rather "talk about technology". You can't, and it is shown here brightly
>>> lit
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> Don't you think that sending of encrypted posts would stop at once if you
>>> would be able to hire someone knowledgeable about technology to set up
>>> your rig for PGP? Your problem is that you are broke, and nobody having
>>> any selfrespect would work for you, paid or not
>> 
>> Setting up gpg won't help him. He'd need a public key and each member
>> would have to accept it and commit to encrypting against it. If I encrypt
>> against Owl's public key only, then only owl can read it. So unlike the
>> group being open and unmoderated, the encryption lets the poster decide
>> who can read the post. It's essentially a white-list.
>> 
>
> The lying imbecile would try to show up as someone new and post reasonably 
> for two or three weeks to get accepting as being genuine.
> It would be a nearly impossible feat for that lunatic cretin, but he would 
> try. He has shown restraint in CSMA also, at least for a while
>
> We would try to get on that list, and then the trolling would start all 
> over.
> Until new keys would have been generated, but Snit Michael Glasser would see 
> that as a "victory" of sorts.

except that new keys do not need to be generated. Assuming I let a snit
sock into my group, all I'd have to do is remove his public key from my
group and my future messages to that group would no longer be encrypted
against Snit's sock puppet. He'd be cut off as easily as he was dealt
in. I can cut anyone in my group off from my posts and they can all do
the same to me. We are each in control of who can decrypt our individual
posts. 

> The way it is now is the worst imaginable for him. He can't read the posts, 
> he is left out in the cold and he can do absolutely nothing about it.

Correct. No sock he makes will gain my trust. I already know the actors
and I'm not accepting new applicants at this time. :)

> Even his lame attempts of activating his socks are so openly declaring 
> defeat that he had better left them in his stinking ass

He watch's too much Pets.com. 

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

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

#373831

Marek Novotny wrote:

> On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Marek Novotny wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/30/16, 12:04 PM, in article nsmd0d$3th$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>>>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The "goal" is to annoy you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sadly I believe you... the goal of you and your herd is to annoy those
>>>>> who are not a part of your herd. Even when the focus is even slightly
>>>>> on tech, such as how to use encryption, all you guys really want is to
>>>>> find a way to annoy others. It is a sickness with you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But, and I mean this, I appreciate you finally being honest about it.
>>>>> It is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Meanwhile I would love to see a greater focus on technology.
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Idiot. This has been *all* about technology. And you failed miserably.
>>>> As you always do when it comes to real technology and not your typical
>>>> bullshit about converting kooking websites to PDF to send them via mail
>>>> or other lunatic tripe
>>>>
>>>> Those posts show *every time* how utterly incompetent you are, and you
>>>> know that as well. They show your shameless lies when you claim that
>>>> you rather "talk about technology". You can't, and it is shown here
>>>> brightly lit
>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>>> Don't you think that sending of encrypted posts would stop at once if
>>>> you would be able to hire someone knowledgeable about technology to set
>>>> up your rig for PGP? Your problem is that you are broke, and nobody
>>>> having any selfrespect would work for you, paid or not
>>> 
>>> Setting up gpg won't help him. He'd need a public key and each member
>>> would have to accept it and commit to encrypting against it. If I
>>> encrypt against Owl's public key only, then only owl can read it. So
>>> unlike the group being open and unmoderated, the encryption lets the
>>> poster decide who can read the post. It's essentially a white-list.
>>> 
>>
>> The lying imbecile would try to show up as someone new and post
>> reasonably for two or three weeks to get accepting as being genuine.
>> It would be a nearly impossible feat for that lunatic cretin, but he
>> would try. He has shown restraint in CSMA also, at least for a while
>>
>> We would try to get on that list, and then the trolling would start all
>> over.
>> Until new keys would have been generated, but Snit Michael Glasser would
>> see that as a "victory" of sorts.
> 
> except that new keys do not need to be generated. Assuming I let a snit
> sock into my group, all I'd have to do is remove his public key from my
> group and my future messages to that group would no longer be encrypted
> against Snit's sock puppet. He'd be cut off as easily as he was dealt
> in. I can cut anyone in my group off from my posts and they can all do
> the same to me. We are each in control of who can decrypt our individual
> posts.
> 
>> The way it is now is the worst imaginable for him. He can't read the
>> posts, he is left out in the cold and he can do absolutely nothing about
>> it.
> 
> Correct. No sock he makes will gain my trust. I already know the actors
> and I'm not accepting new applicants at this time. :)
> 
>> Even his lame attempts of activating his socks are so openly declaring
>> defeat that he had better left them in his stinking ass
> 
> He watch's too much Pets.com.
> 

You are right. I did not think of just removing his key from your keychain

But I am not that certain about "new actors". If acted extremely well, he 
would have a tiny chance of being accepted.

It would be extremely tiny, naturally. Flatfish Gary Stewart was a master in 
that regard, and he has *never* fooled me. It took only a few posts until I 
knew it was him. With Snit Michael Glasser it is far more easy. He is way 
too stupid to build a convincing charade

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

#373834

On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Marek Novotny wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> Marek Novotny wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/30/16, 12:04 PM, in article nsmd0d$3th$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>>>>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The "goal" is to annoy you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sadly I believe you... the goal of you and your herd is to annoy those
>>>>>> who are not a part of your herd. Even when the focus is even slightly
>>>>>> on tech, such as how to use encryption, all you guys really want is to
>>>>>> find a way to annoy others. It is a sickness with you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But, and I mean this, I appreciate you finally being honest about it.
>>>>>> It is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Meanwhile I would love to see a greater focus on technology.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot. This has been *all* about technology. And you failed miserably.
>>>>> As you always do when it comes to real technology and not your typical
>>>>> bullshit about converting kooking websites to PDF to send them via mail
>>>>> or other lunatic tripe
>>>>>
>>>>> Those posts show *every time* how utterly incompetent you are, and you
>>>>> know that as well. They show your shameless lies when you claim that
>>>>> you rather "talk about technology". You can't, and it is shown here
>>>>> brightly lit
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>>> Don't you think that sending of encrypted posts would stop at once if
>>>>> you would be able to hire someone knowledgeable about technology to set
>>>>> up your rig for PGP? Your problem is that you are broke, and nobody
>>>>> having any selfrespect would work for you, paid or not
>>>> 
>>>> Setting up gpg won't help him. He'd need a public key and each member
>>>> would have to accept it and commit to encrypting against it. If I
>>>> encrypt against Owl's public key only, then only owl can read it. So
>>>> unlike the group being open and unmoderated, the encryption lets the
>>>> poster decide who can read the post. It's essentially a white-list.
>>>> 
>>>
>>> The lying imbecile would try to show up as someone new and post
>>> reasonably for two or three weeks to get accepting as being genuine.
>>> It would be a nearly impossible feat for that lunatic cretin, but he
>>> would try. He has shown restraint in CSMA also, at least for a while
>>>
>>> We would try to get on that list, and then the trolling would start all
>>> over.
>>> Until new keys would have been generated, but Snit Michael Glasser would
>>> see that as a "victory" of sorts.
>> 
>> except that new keys do not need to be generated. Assuming I let a snit
>> sock into my group, all I'd have to do is remove his public key from my
>> group and my future messages to that group would no longer be encrypted
>> against Snit's sock puppet. He'd be cut off as easily as he was dealt
>> in. I can cut anyone in my group off from my posts and they can all do
>> the same to me. We are each in control of who can decrypt our individual
>> posts.
>> 
>>> The way it is now is the worst imaginable for him. He can't read the
>>> posts, he is left out in the cold and he can do absolutely nothing about
>>> it.
>> 
>> Correct. No sock he makes will gain my trust. I already know the actors
>> and I'm not accepting new applicants at this time. :)
>> 
>>> Even his lame attempts of activating his socks are so openly declaring
>>> defeat that he had better left them in his stinking ass
>> 
>> He watch's too much Pets.com.
>> 
>
> You are right. I did not think of just removing his key from your keychain
>
> But I am not that certain about "new actors". If acted extremely well, he 
> would have a tiny chance of being accepted.
>
> It would be extremely tiny, naturally. Flatfish Gary Stewart was a master in 
> that regard, and he has *never* fooled me. It took only a few posts until I 
> knew it was him. With Snit Michael Glasser it is far more easy. He is way 
> too stupid to build a convincing charade

Either way, anyone added can be removed just as easily. Only those I
encrypt against can open the post. So we each have our own white-list. 

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

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

#373835

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

On 2016-09-30 5:00 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Marek Novotny wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
>> wrote:
>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>>> 
>>>> On 9/30/16, 12:04 PM, in article nsmd0d$3th$2@dont-email.me,
>>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The "goal" is to annoy you.
>>>> 
>>>> Sadly I believe you... the goal of you and your herd is to
>>>> annoy those who are not a part of your herd. Even when the
>>>> focus is even slightly on tech, such as how to use
>>>> encryption, all you guys really want is to find a way to
>>>> annoy others. It is a sickness with you.
>>>> 
>>>> But, and I mean this, I appreciate you finally being honest
>>>> about it. It is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile I would love to see a greater focus on technology.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Idiot. This has been *all* about technology. And you failed
>>> miserably. As you always do when it comes to real technology
>>> and not your typical bullshit about converting kooking websites
>>> to PDF to send them via mail or other lunatic tripe
>>> 
>>> Those posts show *every time* how utterly incompetent you are,
>>> and you know that as well. They show your shameless lies when
>>> you claim that you rather "talk about technology". You can't,
>>> and it is shown here brightly lit
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> Don't you think that sending of encrypted posts would stop at
>>> once if you would be able to hire someone knowledgeable about
>>> technology to set up your rig for PGP? Your problem is that you
>>> are broke, and nobody having any selfrespect would work for
>>> you, paid or not
>> 
>> Setting up gpg won't help him. He'd need a public key and each
>> member would have to accept it and commit to encrypting against
>> it. If I encrypt against Owl's public key only, then only owl can
>> read it. So unlike the group being open and unmoderated, the
>> encryption lets the poster decide who can read the post. It's
>> essentially a white-list.
>> 
> 
> The lying imbecile would try to show up as someone new and post
> reasonably for two or three weeks to get accepting as being
> genuine. It would be a nearly impossible feat for that lunatic
> cretin, but he would try. He has shown restraint in CSMA also, at
> least for a while

ROFL #1

> We would try to get on that list, and then the trolling would start
> all over. Until new keys would have been generated, but Snit
> Michael Glasser would see that as a "victory" of sorts. The way it
> is now is the worst imaginable for him. He can't read the posts, he
> is left out in the cold and he can do absolutely nothing about it.
> 
> Even his lame attempts of activating his socks are so openly
> declaring defeat that he had better left them in his stinking ass

ROFL #2

- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX7t6LAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uHiYH/RSPqAfwJu2ydlNMIcXL6PdC
g/5PkkKUDCq0MLY2i5QFfY3inzh0V/rX0W0Plq5V2708TjdT+eYmZx8M8b0d/BSk
+vmUpk99JguQAqYGb24DWS1acOqD0MoGA36OIT0w1+8CB9iJWcndnRjJULtYNouS
C3YCI6U2azFoOVo1utEw8es71fJZ8wY6+nI5KPvEJfkiuYvGiYwodwJm7IX0IaWb
eRcCt8jgvSU1UMySV46vaMQHOFFR/Iq09Iu0EHa8n1VbPSOeJuSuPzVwtiUJZkZx
JAPUgQV63pAVnZDbMzZxSIlW/PoZQbALryWr3RQIarPkRUqD2NuHpO8RtZ7dSUM=
=8Gho
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#373832

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

On 2016-09-30 4:48 PM, Marek Novotny wrote:
> On 2016-09-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser babbled:
>> 
>>> On 9/30/16, 12:04 PM, in article nsmd0d$3th$2@dont-email.me,
>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The "goal" is to annoy you.
>>> 
>>> Sadly I believe you... the goal of you and your herd is to
>>> annoy those who are not a part of your herd. Even when the
>>> focus is even slightly on tech, such as how to use encryption,
>>> all you guys really want is to find a way to annoy others. It
>>> is a sickness with you.
>>> 
>>> But, and I mean this, I appreciate you finally being honest
>>> about it. It is what I have been saying for a long time.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile I would love to see a greater focus on technology.
>>> 
>> 
>> Idiot. This has been *all* about technology. And you failed
>> miserably. As you always do when it comes to real technology and
>> not your typical bullshit about converting kooking websites to
>> PDF to send them via mail or other lunatic tripe
>> 
>> Those posts show *every time* how utterly incompetent you are,
>> and you know that as well. They show your shameless lies when you
>> claim that you rather "talk about technology". You can't, and it
>> is shown here brightly lit
> 
> +1
> 
>> Don't you think that sending of encrypted posts would stop at
>> once if you would be able to hire someone knowledgeable about
>> technology to set up your rig for PGP? Your problem is that you
>> are broke, and nobody having any selfrespect would work for you,
>> paid or not
> 
> Setting up gpg won't help him. He'd need a public key and each
> member would have to accept it and commit to encrypting against it.
> If I encrypt against Owl's public key only, then only owl can read
> it. So unlike the group being open and unmoderated, the encryption
> lets the poster decide who can read the post. It's essentially a
> white-list.

There's no way in Hell that anyone here who has accepted a future of
encryption would allow the Prescott Parasite to see the posts. It's a
good strategy and it will rid us all of the thing forever. Not only
that but it suddenly turns an incredibly insecure forum into a very
private and very secure one which would be Hell to decrypt for even
the most insistent party. A single post would take a crapload of
processing and there are lots and lots of useless posts on Usenet.
Finding just ONE which would be of interest to the authorities would
take decades.


- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX7t2HAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+ufp4H+gONnlxIP3ls+l+K7ECY6dSA
69Jzkye6ev0YPLSVy6y9PR7a8GfOfMkvn1qY2mF/8C7KUiZxCml6BMu23CKptYaD
V/7lXIDd5DwMJYRueA4D1K/QUM0GjrXtAe05XEcFLP9xK4Knk8QTxRpM1806HYsc
49JCymoKKO2XRPzw6NFreK8ynPESQ/QlsQhKj5g8aFvexHcZy/8uEhx0nrykb/8q
IN1DfAshHoYG8OCT+z8oMGK2eYhm3ZYR//xf0t61SZhC5nz4ldblVeYYk2PGWbpv
zGI+MnWEJnrzU5Q1MgSONz7y5SRGE6SwYDfyOf8wgjKX6bXO7tKNWg4r+VVnm4Y=
=cp1O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#373789

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

On 2016-09-30 1:47 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
> 
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Köhlmann 
>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser (Bozzo Rink) babbled:
>>> 
>>>> Does anyone have a link to setting up public and private keys
>>>> using Safari and Microsoft Entourage?
>>> 
>>> Poor Snit Michael Glasser.
>>> 
>>> Clueless as always. And *you* claim to know *anything* at all 
>>> about technical things?
>>> 
>>> How come that you always claim that you want to "talk about 
>>> technology". And *every* time that is done you fail miserably.
>>>  Pissed because you can't read in COLA now?
>> 
>> Peter, join the fun.  Give use a public key.
> 
> No. I have *always* posted with my own name, because I actually 
> stand to the words I wrote.

So you don't mind it if the stupid stuff you often write is tied to
your name? Sounds good.

> And for the same reason I *never* post encrypted in a public group.
> Not even signed, as that is next to useless.

Then we'll have to try and learn to have fun without you. Of course, I
can't imagine how that's even possible. Omitting the most interesting
klöwn in the world? We're just asking for boredom!

- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX7sd7AAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uLUIH/2el42gcPqgOx7ujtZFTY75J
RFu2HExZO2S38ZcD1atVyvcN6nC7oOhoXpZ18aOKq96WuTRnABo9DVFChkJ6h0pM
pIgJ0TQTLEU0C8YXDsl9ZvnizcZh0E7EHrYfZlwZHLythsUunuEtZhRh9HyMOrlq
zKiqg5HOohFZjUYHXNinUdnm/ZIFJKKKeTMjNmmwue2yCRZJ7DwsSHx6Gxu/d6nn
eH4sg6lA0VQvLs9tM8u3Xnh9MCFFl0REvRIJ06InkGgnxozXAet2pE4d1D4TqhJr
MJvE0z57g3hv79/eWw6LimIQX31dkkW66Vo24lvKnFAtxQ4e7Cn3WtcMnerO/Xk=
=lwNI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#373884

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Octavian W. Lagrange wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
>> wrote:
>>> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser (Bozzo Rink) babbled:
>>> 
>>>> Does anyone have a link to setting up public and private keys using
>>>> Safari and Microsoft Entourage?
>>> 
>>> Poor Snit Michael Glasser.
>>> 
>>> Clueless as always. And *you* claim to know *anything* at all about
>>> technical things?
>>> 
>>> How come that you always claim that you want to "talk about technology".
>>> And *every* time that is done you fail miserably. Pissed because you
>>> can't read in COLA now?
>> 
>> Peter, join the fun.  Give use a public key.
>
> No. I have *always* posted with my own name, because I actually stand to the 
> words I wrote.
> And for the same reason I *never* post encrypted in a public group. Not even 
> signed, as that is next to useless.

 +1

-- 
Your mode of life will be changed for the better because of good news soon.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web