1994-03-02 - Re: Insecurity of public key crypto #1 (reply to Mandl)

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
To: Eric Johnson <ejohnson@pmip.dist.maricopa.edu>
Message Hash: 36737ea949485430988ce3c215ac03ae68fa963ac13af4404c1525c2d774bf31
Message ID: <9403021214.AA21553@andria.lehman.com>
Reply To: <199403020511.WAA21677@pmip.dist.maricopa.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-03-02 12:15:29 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 04:15:29 PST

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 04:15:29 PST
To: Eric Johnson <ejohnson@pmip.dist.maricopa.edu>
Subject: Re: Insecurity of public key crypto #1 (reply to Mandl)
In-Reply-To: <199403020511.WAA21677@pmip.dist.maricopa.edu>
Message-ID: <9403021214.AA21553@andria.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Eric Johnson says:
> : Please don't do that.  I don't want to go through hoops to read this
> : mailing list.  It's already cumbersome as is.  Adding PGP in the soup
> : would make things very nasty.  I'd rather not use PGP except for private
> : messages.
> 
> That was exactly the point Eric Hughes was making; it is not a good
> strategy to save encryption for only private communications.
> 
> Besides, procmail (or similar) should be able to handle piping
> incoming cypherpunks traffic through the decryptor, so the hoop 
> would be transparent anyway.  No muss, no fuss.

So, will procmail run for someone getting this mailing list via CCMail
under DOS? There are people doing that, you know.

Its one thing to write tools so people can encrypt their routine
PRIVATE mail. Its another thing to encrypt mailing lists read by
hundreds of people. The former can be adjusted on a case by case basis
-- the latter cannot.

Perry

Thread

• Return to March 1994

• Return to “Anthony D Ortenzi <ao27+@andrew.cmu.edu>”
• Return to “Eric Johnson <ejohnson@pmip.dist.maricopa.edu>”
• Return to “hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)”
• Return to “Jeremy Cooper <jeremy@crl.com>”
• Return to “Nathan Loofbourrow <loofbour@cis.ohio-state.edu>”
• Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>”

• Return to “tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)”

• 1994-03-02 (Tue, 1 Mar 94 21:11:49 PST) - Re: Insecurity of public key crypto #1 (reply to Mandl) - Eric Johnson <ejohnson@pmip.dist.maricopa.edu>
  • 1994-03-02 (Wed, 2 Mar 94 04:15:29 PST) - Re: Insecurity of public key crypto #1 (reply to Mandl) - “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
    • 1994-03-02 (Wed, 2 Mar 94 06:52:01 PST) - Increasing the encrypted/unencrypted ratio (was Re: Insecurity of public key crypto #1 (reply to Mandl)) - Nathan Loofbourrow <loofbour@cis.ohio-state.edu>
      • 1994-03-02 (Wed, 2 Mar 94 08:30:14 PST) - Increasing the encrypted/unencrypted ratio (was Re: Insecurity of public key crypto #1 (reply to Mandl)) - hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
        • 1994-03-02 (Wed, 2 Mar 94 13:35:16 PST) - Re: Increasing the encrypted/unencrypted ratio (was Re: Insecurity of public key crypto #1 (reply to Mandl)) - Anthony D Ortenzi <ao27+@andrew.cmu.edu>
          • 1994-03-04 (Fri, 4 Mar 94 13:04:32 PST) - Re: Increasing the encrypted/unencrypted ratio (was Re: Insecurity of public key crypto #1 (reply to Mandl)) - Jeremy Cooper <jeremy@crl.com>
      • 1994-03-02 (Wed, 2 Mar 94 10:38:38 PST) - Laziness? - tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
        • 1994-03-02 (Wed, 2 Mar 94 13:29:40 PST) - Re: Laziness? - Nathan Loofbourrow <loofbour@cis.ohio-state.edu>
          • 1994-03-03 (Wed, 2 Mar 94 16:39:56 PST) - Laziness? - hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)