OpenPGP Security Info Error - signature verification failed
gpg command line and output: C:\\Program Files\\GNU\\GnuPG\\gpg.exe --charset utf8 --batch --no-tty --status-fd 2 -d gpg: Signature made 03/20/07 23:23:32 using DSA key ID 73246664 gpg: BAD signature from "Andrew Del Vecchio ([EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key (2048 bit)) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" Andrew Del Vecchio wrote: > Thanks for the insights so far. I have done some documentation work on > the wiki, but I've run out of things to write. What are the areas most > in need of documentation that is also NOT programming side, which I > don't know much about? I also support the project financially already. > Perhaps I can get some of our members to do so as well. > > We would be using Tor as a cover for a cluster of e-mail servers which > send constituent messages to Congress. Currently, we do this directly, > but we've had a few isolated "accidents" in the past that were not > explained, and seemed a bit like political censorship, though we can't > prove it due to the usual "plausible deniability" that politicians so > treasure. > > I agree that this whole thing may have negative consequences, but > would it be possible to configure Tor so that we had a separate node > network that was not connected to Tor, at least not as far as end > nodes go? This would shift and contain the blame to our participants > and not the entire community. Still, governments are famous for their > tendency toward collective punishment, so perhaps that wouldn't do > much anyway. > > Is there any other solution? > > ~Andrew > > ---- > > Frivolous lawsuits. Unlawful government seizures. What's YOUR defense? > Protect your assets, keep what you earn, and generate more income at the > same time! > Visit http://www.mpassetprotection.com/ today. > > > > > On 03/20/2007 07:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:28:51PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote 1.5K bytes in 40 lines about: : Anyway, we are testing the > > possibility of using Tor to help prevent : being blacklisted by > > Congressional IT bureaucrats. In conjunction with > > > What would be blacklisted? Your current IPs and domains or Tor > > Servers? Circumventing blocks with Tor will only result in Tor > > being blocked. Angering Congress IT people doesn't seem smart. > > Perhaps the people with which you interact aren't scientists, but > > I'll assure you these people exist. Starting an arms race with > > them is a losing proposition. Chances are they can outspend you on > > solutions. > > > : this, we'd like to encourage participants (at least donor : > > participants) to help out by running their own Tor exit nodes to : > > improve the anonymity and bandwidth capability of the network we've > > : all come to know and love. I'm all for doing this, but the > > question : is, how do we do this in a proper manner? My fear is > > that spreading : the word too much will get us in trouble > > eventually. Worst case > > > "Yay Tor more nodes!" Helping create more Tor nodes is great. > > Doing so with a long-term commitment is better. Your choices > > really come down to funding your own projects or funding Tor to > > build these things (LiveCD, USB Stick, point-click-tor-exit node, > > tor exit node in a box if you will). There exist a few projects > > similar to these. Many of these are orphans. > > > Alternatively, helping Tor better document and make it easier to > > create exit nodes is just as big of a help. Having easy to follow > > instructions and GUIs (such as Vidalia) go a long way towards more > > nodes. > > > As for spreading the word, the horse is out of the barn and halfway > > across the country. Tor is not a secret. If you're looking to > > anger the IT dept for Congress, don't use Tor as the leverage. > > It's bad for Tor, and bad for you in the long run. > > > These are my initial thoughts. I may have more later on. > > > Thanks!
