Text 25997, 93 rader
Skriven 2006-02-28 11:46:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 25989 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Elist mergers
=====================
 >> And so you put the blame for that onto the Elist that Thom maintains?

 MVDV>> Who is to blame is irrelevant is beside the point. The point is that I

 >    Then you should not have brought it up when denigrating Thom's Elist.

What I bring up to illustrate my point is not for you to decide.

 MVDV>> personally experienced that a list that can be up to a
 MVDV>> month out of date is useless.

 >   Which is not relevant when talking about the Elist that Thom keeps.

It is relevant to my point that an out of date list is useless. As would have
been the case when Thom's and Peter's list were synchronised only once a month.

 >>   There were many solutions.  However, as you often do, we
 >> chose the simplest.

 MVDV>> No you didn't. The simplest would have been to accept the
 MVDV>> successor appointed by Adrian and send the updates to Peter.

 >   Adrian did not have the authority to appoint a a successor.

Looking at it that way, no one has the authority to appoint a successor for the
Z1 e-list keeper. Z1 has no echomail policy and the official Z1 POV is that
echomail is not part of FidoNet. Officially the Z1 e-list keeper is not part of
FidoNet.

But... Adrian was in possession of the data and so *he* was the only one to
decide who he turned them over too.

 > He resigned and suggested a successor -- but that suggestion
 > was not accepted.

It was accepted by the Z2 *EC's. And *they* have the authority to accept an
e-list keeper.

It was only the Z1 community that did not accept.

 MVDV>> were routed via 1"123/500. The messages routed via your
 MVDV>> host did not make it.

 >   I'm looking into that.  There have been a number of changes
 > in the net and region in the past month or two.

Hmmm...

 MVDV>> As you feared I have not been able to decrypt them however.
 MVDV>> My vesrion pf PGP (2.6.1) can not handle it.

 >    Quite possibly, it was a choice of symetric algorithm that
 > was the problem.   The version I use has more choices, the older
 > version 2.6 has fewer.   I'll try again using a lower grade algorithm
 > that 2.6 is more likely to use.

Didn't work either. It complains about an unknown packet format.

Your old public key was accepted however and is now added to my key ring.

Had you not put two encrypted blocks in one and the same message, it would have
happened automatically. Although I haven't used PGP in a long time, I still
have a utility running that checks the netmail area for PGP encrypted messages
and public keys. If it sees one adressed to me, it extracts the text from the
message and offers it or PGP. The output is written back into a message
addressed to me. Nut it does not expect more than one encrypted block, so it
did not process the key automatically.

Coming to think of it, now that I am on-line 24/7 by IP, I should rearrange
that. Thet utility also checks for outgoing messages in the netmail folder that
are to be encrypted. I wrote that utility whe I was still a point. Then it
could never happen that the unencrypted message went out before the "process
outgoing mail" batch routine had run.

But now, the uplink could come connect and pick it up between writing the
message and running the "process outgoing". Hmmm....

 MVDV>> I took a look at the url in thge comment line of your key,
 MVDV>> but I am not sure if I want to use /their/ version. The
 MVDV>> riginal PGP by Phil Zommerman was completely free, but it
 MVDV>> seems now a commercial frim has taken charge of it and
 MVDV>> their are all kinds of strings attached. I'll have to
 MVDV>> consider if I can trust them...

 >   It is a company formed by Phil Zimmerman, although I am not
 > certain whether he is with it at the moment or not.

When I have some time to spare, I will take a closer look.

Cheers, Michiel

--- Buy Danish
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)