From:	"The Illustrious Mr. Frypp" <JAMES-CUENO@*********.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Allright, No More Mr. Nice Dread Executor
Date:	Fri, 18 Oct 1996 08:36:00 CST

> Ummmmm. We had a few problems with this around Xmas... Wasn't the
> general agreement that the encryption involved in a PRIVATE message,
> although good, was too flimsy to stand up to heavy (corp, gov't, etc)
> scrutiny, and that ENCRYPTION was the only way to ensure privacy?

I'm only enforcing the FAQ. And there's nothing there about
encryption outside the message body.

Personally I think the PRIVATE is good enough. The origins of the
PRIVATE header are in the once outrageous practices of adding
encryption to messages. If they still exist, check logs from two,
two and a half years ago. Unless the encryptions were editted off or
altered, you should be able to see how bad it had gotten. My
interpretation of PRIVATE is that any necessary encryption is
already there.

If you _must_ have encryption, it would go inside the message body as
a dramatic anyway. However, I am not advocating that practice
either.