1992-10-09 - Re: +-=*^

Header Data

From: Peter Shipley <shipley@tfs.COM>
To: Secret_Squirrel@treehouse.com
Message Hash: aca914116e261da03e08977616fac44612be493b810335fb01c85b9597d7a534
Message ID: <9210091823.AA11516@edev0.TFS>
Reply To: <9210091712.AA27717@atdt.org>
UTC Datetime: 1992-10-09 18:16:24 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:16:24 PDT

Raw message

From: Peter Shipley <shipley@tfs.COM>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 11:16:24 PDT
To: Secret_Squirrel@treehouse.com
Subject: Re: +-=*^
In-Reply-To: <9210091712.AA27717@atdt.org>
Message-ID: <9210091823.AA11516@edev0.TFS>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>re: Interface for re-mailer; why not hitch it to emacs or something?
> 

that to...

>re: problem with key distribution; right, OK, I hadn't thought that
>there might be a security problem with casually giving someone your
>key without them being able to authenticate that it came from you.  Good
>point.


I look at it this way, by emailing my puplic key anyone can send me a secure 
message (I can't trust where/who it came from but we [the sender and I] can
assume that noone is eavesdroping (it could have been replaced but
not altered or read) 


For secure authenticated, where you *know* if came from me you have to contact
me or someone you trust that has contacted me.

		    -Pete





Thread