From: dmandl@lehman.com (David Mandl)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 07:25:20 PDT
To: crunch@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Encrypting Cypherpunks mailing list postings
Message-ID: <9306091424.AA17881@disvnm2.shearson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: crunch@netcom.com (John Draper)

> Mikes response to the ideas of encrypting the Cypherpunks mailing list...
> 
> >I was (thinking?) of distributing a common secret key to
> >people
> >who we know are not spooks, and who would be interested in the cypherpunk's
> >cause. 
> 
> I think it MAY be possible to write a perl program that would take the
> incoming mail encrypted with a single common public key for Cypherpunk
> mailing list mail,   than would decrypt it internally,  then for each
> person in the mailing list,  using their public keys,   encrypt each
> message for the individual recipients,  and mail them out.

But this is a PUBLIC LIST.  Our readers from the NSA/FBI/CIA will get the
messages along with everyone else--encrypted with their keys, of course, so no
spies can read them!  I just don't think any of this makes sense for a list
this large and this open.  Anyone can subscribe.  For smaller circles of
friends who know and trust one another, it would be more useful.

BTW, wouldn't this all be easier using the "multiple recipients" feature of
PGP anyway?  This is exactly the kind of thing it was designed for: Server
gets message, server multiply-encrypts to all subscribers, server distributes
message the same way it does now.  But again, I think this is pointless on a
list like this.

> The ravers can really use something like this to keep the Full Moon Raves
> location a secret and known ONLY to those dedicated ravers that want to
> attend.

Yup.  Agreed.  This is exactly the kind of group that should be using PGP in
this way.

I do think that it would be a good idea to make an active effort to distribute
and certify keys.  This will also help to promote the use of encryption, which
should be one of our main goals. 

Also: Making a sub-list of people who are "known not to be spooks," on a list
like this, is dangerous.  Would be nice if we could really do it, but there
would almost certainly be agents getting included in the sub-list, as well as
exclusions of folks who aren't agents.

   --Dave.