XPost: alt.security.pgp, alt.wired, alt.flame   
   From: asik@mail.gr   
      
   Neb Okla  did this:   
   > "03:15:38 GMT"  wrote in message   
   > news:3f87bbc6$0$2943$df066bcf@news.sexzilla.net...   
   >> Neb Okla  did this:   
   >> > We've been through this before.   
   >> >   
   >> > If someone is stealing your name and it bothers you, post with an S/MIME   
   >> > digital signature.   
   >> >   
   >> > It takes under 15 minutes to sign up - and it's free.   
   >>   
   >> Then whoever is posting under his name can just add something that   
   >> looks like a public key signature at the end of his or her posts, and   
   >> the vast majority of the three people who read Plamer's spewage will   
   >> be none the wiser - not that I'm complaining.   
   >   
   > That's why I suggested S/MIME.   
      
   I noticed, but I was willing to overlook that. Since you insist: As   
   the name suggests, S/MIME is a mail protocol. It is unsuitable for   
   Usenet also because of size considerations and because so few   
   newsreaders support it. I've never seen a Netnews article signed with   
   S/MIME, and I rather suspect such articles are extremely rare if they   
   exist at all.   
      
   > It's easy to add a PGP-looking signature to the end of ones posts.  Since   
   > most people don't have PGP installed, nobody will really notice that the   
   > signature is invalid.  Even if they do have PGP installed, they'll have to   
   > actively click "Decrypt & Verify" to even *check* to see if the signature is   
   > valid.   
   >   
   > If we assume that people who wish to read his posts are generally more   
   > likely to use the default NNTP client, then it is highly probable that they   
   > will use Outlook Express or Netscape Communicator.   
   >   
   > S/MIME comes pre-installed in many NNTP clients (Outlook Express and   
   > Netscape Communicator), therefore the liklihood is fairly high that the   
   > signature authentication will take place automatically.  If authentication   
   > of the signature fails, the user is alerted in a VERY obvious way.   
      
   In the group from which I'm posting, users of Outlook Express and   
   various flavors of Netscape/Mozilla comprise a third of the posters.   
   Furthermore, do you know for a fact that those programs support the   
   S/MIME signing and verifying of _Usenet_ posts? They may offer this   
   support for email, but that's not the same thing at all.   
      
   > FUT: alt.security.pgp   
      
   Cheerfully ignored. I do note that the readers of that newsgroup have   
   also taken the time to correct you on this matter.   
      
   --   
    Ari    
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)