Re: Internic and PGP (fwd)

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:01:26 -0500
From: David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com>
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Internic and PGP


On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 10:49:35PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 07:31:24PM -0800, J.D. Falk wrote:
> > 	I don't think it's ever been officially announced as down,
> > 	but they'd admit there were problems if you called.
> 
> 	If they ever did, you know, that might affect their stock
> price.  Can't do that.  Not with the money grubbing higher-ups ;)
> 
> 	I've found that the way that mutt supports pgp, doesn't work
> right with their template processing stuff, so you have
> to pgp -sa the file then e-mail it in for it to work.  They've not lost
> my key (that i'm aware of), and only returned templates I sent with
> the mutt pgp stuff, but not with the ELM2.4 ME+ (that works correctly).

I have gone to silly lengths to ensure that I am giving them a valid
signature.  Once I signed the template, and then verified the signature. I
then copied it to another machine with a different PGP version and
re-verified the signature. Then I mailed it to myself off-site and
verified the signature on the remote system to ensure the mail system
wasn't breaking something.  Finally, I mailed it to
hostmaster@internic.net and cc'd myself on and off-site.  Both copies I
got back verified fine.  The Internic took a few days and then bounced it
because they couldn't verify the signature.

David

-- 
   David Shaw  |  dshaw@jabberwocky.com  |  WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson