1993-10-25 - Re: ADMIN: Shall we sign?

Header Data

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: ac8e81b705bff500ef02d1001b7acdc903f54bec83fe1209de735d64915ed7cf
Message ID: <9310250646.AA14091@toad.com>
Reply To: <9310250606.AA04356@netcom5.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-25 06:48:41 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 23:48:41 PDT

Raw message

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 23:48:41 PDT
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Shall we sign?
In-Reply-To: <9310250606.AA04356@netcom5.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9310250646.AA14091@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> While I'm not sure if the LD/S.Boxx situation, and the general claims
> of "pseudospoofing" are motivating Eric's idea, I certainly don't see
> a system of "weak" digital sigs (weak meaning no real checking) doing
> anything.
> 7. Finally, I have yet to see any serious evidence that this so-called
> pseudospoofing is going on, that is, that people are pretending to be
> others.

Several people have inferred or assumed that Eric's suggestion was in
response to this "pseudospoofing" circus.  As I read his original
message, he simply hoped to provide an incentive for the use of
digital signatures, and to encourage the writing of software to make
this easier.  After all, digital signatures don't prevent the
establishment of pseudonyms -- in fact, they indirectly promote it
by preventing "claim-jumping" on an established nym.

> I've never seen anyone else claim to be me, at least not seriously,

I am you.  Seriously.

> --Tim

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu