Just a sample of the Echomail archive
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]
|  Message 500  |
|  Wilfred van Velzen to August Abolins  |
|  Re: not encrypted, but still needs decod  |
|  10 Jan 20 09:24:51  |
 TID: FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815 RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes TZUTC: 0100 CHRS: UTF-8 2 PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 MSGID: 2:280/464 5e1834d4 REPLY: 2:221/1.58@fidonet e0411c85 Hi August, On 2020-01-09 18:50:00, you wrote to me: WvV>> Below is my reply to your message. It's *not encrypted* only signed WvV>> (but not clearsigned). Anyone with gpg can decode it and view it's WvV>> contents AA> [snip] WvV>> -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- WvV>> Version: GnuPG v2 WvV>> owGbwMvMwMRovbl2hdf0ydqMaxlNk7jS83NSUlP0covT48Qnf/DIVHAsTS8tLtHh WvV>> 4vLPUzAyMDLQNTDUNbBUMDKyMja3MjDVUajML1UoL8ovSVUoyVfITbXi4lKws1Nw AA> An "only signed" message produces what still looks encrypted. AA> Maybe we are being too loose with the terminology. AA> Maybe we should say, just signing a message *encodes* it. I'm already trying to do that. "Ascii encoding" is not the same as "Encrypting" ! ;) Bye, Wilfred. --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815 * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464) SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 154/10 203/0 221/0 227/114 229/426 1014 240/5832 SEEN-BY: 249/206 317 400 280/464 5003 292/854 310/31 317/3 322/757 SEEN-BY: 342/200 396/45 423/120 712/848 770/1 2452/250 PATH: 280/464 229/426 |
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]