From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@shearson.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 11:22:45 PDT
To: Douglas Mason <approach!douglas@approach.com>
Subject: Re: PHRACK: Article from PHRACK 42 on encryption
Message-ID: <9304071652.AA02691@snark.shearson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Douglas Mason says:
> 
> 
> > >> Exposing factual errors and flaws in reasoning is left as an exercise
> > >> for the reader.
> 
> > >The flaws are big enough to drive a bakery truck through. Its trash.
>  
> > maybe you should do a better writeup and publish it in PHRACK or 2600?
> 
> I agree.  Anyone can sit and say "Oh, that article is a piece of crap", but
> these same people never put their "money where their mouth is" and write an
> article of their own.
> 
> I've written for both Phrack and 2600 and it sure as hell isn't hard to get
> something submitted.  If you think you can do better by all means write an
> article and send it in.  If trash is being published, why not try to correct
> it?

Because I lack an interest in doing so?

Anyway, there is no need, as the PGP manual is very good and actually
explains things properly. Lots of fine articles have already been
written on all sorts of cryptography subjects.

> If you have any problems with where to send it, I'll gladly forward you the
> address.
> 
> Otherwise, shut the hell up.  

Why should I? The article WAS crap.

> If you don't like your goverment, vote.

I'm an anarchist. You might as well say to an atheist "if you don't
like Catholicism, start a schism."

Perry