Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #373024

Re: owl - please test

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject	Re: owl - please test
Date	2016-09-27 12:01 -0700
Message-ID	<D410100B.7E9E8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink)
References	<hqedneSB1IJa03XKnZ2dnUU7-budnZ2d@giganews.com> <D40DAFA4.7E786%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <hjasgue03.g@perch.invalid>

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/27/16, 11:57 AM, in article hjasgue03.g@perch.invalid, "Octavian W.
Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:

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

I am going to guess you are simply trolling me over how you screwed up on
the "script's window" nonsense you pushed, but, hey, feel free to prove me
wrong.

And, unlike you, if I am wrong I will happily admit to it.


-- 
* 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>

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

Thread

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

csiph-web