From: Information Security <guy@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 02:40:48 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:  ascii art is not a digital signature (Re: Cypherpunk Policeman?)
Message-ID: <199802251040.FAA09365@panix2.panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   >   From aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Feb 25 04:19:12 1998
   >   
   >   Guy <guy@panix.com> writes:
   >   >    >   From aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk Tue Feb 24 18:55:45 1998
   >   >    >
   >   >    >   You sure?  I mean it could as easily as not been someone spoofing him,
   >   >    >   what with the various anonymous mails, etc., that you reported.
   >   > 
   >   > It is a blatant obviousity.
   >   > 
   >   > [series of ascii art posts posted via different remailer addresses,
   >   > and bwalk.dm.com email addresses]
   >   
   >   It is not at all obvious.  You seem to be under the illusion that an
   >   ascii art image is some kind of digital signature.

You seem to think people couldn't share a digital signature.

   >   > Traffic analysis simply means convincing one or more people
   >   > that it's the same person...
   >   
   >   Doesn't prove anything.

Sure it does, I've proven that with PSI.

Guess what happens if those people are a jury?

   >   Here to make the point, I'll use one of your magic digital signature
   >   ascii arts which somehow proves incontrovertably that the post was
   >   made by Dimitri.  

I can see that one flew over your head, and pooped on you.
---guy