From:	Bruce Ford <shaman@*******.COM>
Subject:	Points & the FAQ.
Date:	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 18:57:12 -0700

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Jeffrey Mach wrote:

> There was a rather big discussion about a year ago regarding encryption.
> At the time there was a growing use of more and more encryption "headers"
> that people were using to show how _really_ encrypted their posts were.
> While not quite so bad that the Encryption to message ratio was falling
> below 1, it was pretty bad. General consensus on the list was that the
> use of the *****PRIVATE: header was a sign of significant encryption,

Thanks, for letting me know. Being new to the list I am relying on what
was in the FAQ, wherein it states that some people may prefer to add an
additional level of encryption.

It is becoming quite apparent to me that several things have been
determined in this list, perhaps for the thing to do would be for the
veterans of the list who know what's changed to put together a new FAQ so
that those of us who are new don't keep stumbling over these little things
and taking up additional bandwidth.

> Since the message is already *****PRIVATE to Faerie, then I don't see the
> reason why the section you encrypted needed to be any more private than
> the rest of it. (As a side note, since I know a little more about the
> character than you do, too much technomantic legendermain may make the
> post quite unreadable for her...but I guess that is up to Jaimie to
> decide.)

As I just discovered a few messages ago, a preceding messsage I had sent
out with a number of "codes" to be used bounced on the way to the list but
knowing that additional encryption is now frowned on, I shall talk to
Jaimie about it privately and likely just work it that the encryption was
never there instead of resending the encryption list message.

Thanks once more for the information.
Bruce.