1993-10-25 - Re: ADMIN: proposed new policy on the mailing list

Header Data

From: plaz@netcom.com (Geoff Dale)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: fc49c60913b701d6093616b36c05574b89dc65216e46fb3500a82735908c8b91
Message ID: <9310250133.AA26931@netcom.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-25 01:33:11 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 18:33:11 PDT

Raw message

From: plaz@netcom.com (Geoff Dale)
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 18:33:11 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: ADMIN: proposed new policy on the mailing list
Message-ID: <9310250133.AA26931@netcom.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>I don't think restricting participation to signed messages
>is a good idea until we have some way of verifying a 
>signature automatically before allowing it to be posted.

Actually, Eric wasn't suggesting restricting participation, just putting a
delay on it.

But you're right. This proposed policy is pointless. I would probably end
up copying and pasting a bogus signature (not bogus for somebody else's
message, but bogus for mine) into my message to avoid the delay. The
policy, as it stands is rediculously easy to circumvent. I suspect that
this would be even less effective than the national 55 mph speed limit.

>How do we prevent people from registering a key in
>someone else's name??? It's beyond me.

You can't. There is simply no way to kill pseudo-spoofing without coming
down on the whole internet with a massively intrusive security system. It
certainly isn't worth it to me, to hand the net over to big brother to
avoid people posting under various aliases.

You'd almost certainly end up losing anonymous posting as well.

PS - Eric you can take this as a vote "NO".

Geoff Dale    -- insert standard disclaimers here --    plaz@netcom.com
               "We are the shock troops of reality."
                - Voice of the Friends (Wild Palms)