1993-03-26 - Many Important Items in the News

Header Data

From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: bb63acad024eab01baea891c60eaf2deef2af23434a7f25dd82ebbf5eef89606
Message ID: <9303260756.AA24450@soda.berkeley.edu>
Reply To: <9303260549.AA12789@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-26 08:00:42 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 00:00:42 PST

Raw message

From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 00:00:42 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Many Important Items in the News
In-Reply-To: <9303260549.AA12789@toad.com>
Message-ID: <9303260756.AA24450@soda.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>marc, if article cancellation is made cryptographically secure, there
>is the possibility that articles can be made uncancellable.  of course,
>if there is some wild card that allows the backbone cabal to cancel
>articles remotely and after the fact, then i suspect usenet will remain
>vulnerable to forged cancellation messages.  but maybe not.

What you are describing here is an alternate method of cancellation,
not a forgery of the main way of cancelling.

Of course, if they really want such an alternate method of cancelling,
let's write it for them, so that it also uses signatures to check

>i see your point about backbone admins refusing to traffic in certain
>kinds of messages, but as a veteran of usenet from before it was even
>called usenet, i assure you that other admins would quickly fill in the
>gaps in connectivity.  this has happened many times.

All the more reason to allow the backbone admins the power to not pass
anonymous articles.  It won't work, they'll feel like they're in
control, and everyone wins.