From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 06:50:14 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Market for Crypto--A Curmudgeon's View
In-Reply-To: <199411291101.DAA12770@netcom14.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199411291549.HAA03235@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)

   It's just that my "rant buttons" are pushed by an argument I'll call
   the "crypto isn't being used by enough people, so we'll have to make
   our own lives harder to set an example" argument. 

Let me review the exact proposal.  First, a recognizer is set up at
toad.com to distinguish between digitally signed and unsigned
messages.  Second, some action on the message would be taken, which
would gradually increase in effect over time.  The first action would
be to add a header to the end of the mail identifying it as unsigned.
A later action would be to delay the mail at the server for some
amount of time.  A final action would be to delete or bounce messages
that weren't signed.

I note that Tim is not objecting to the nature of these effects, but
rather their existence, especially since he is not addressing the
timing of any ramped up vigor at the server.  Just to set the record
straight, refusing messages would be at the very least over year away,
and certainly wouldn't be taken until crypto mail readers were widely
available.  For purposes of discussion then, I leave out message
deletion and only address the server actions of notification and
delay.

One underlying premise of Tim's argument is that the presence of these
actions at the server makes his life harder.

In what way?  The server will not require a digital signature.
Unsigned messages will still be sent to the list.  There need be no
change in the way that one sends and receives mail.

I refuse the argument that toad.com server actions make anybody's life
harder.

I'm not saying that these server actions would have no effect, far
from it.  The effects are all in the social realm and have far more to
do with peer pressure and social position than with technology.  Can
it be said that being marked as a non-signer makes one's life harder?
I think not, perhaps others feel otherwise.

I do, however, agree with the other two premises of Tim's
hypothetical.  I do think that crypto isn't being used by enough
people.  I realize that the exact meaning of 'enough' is subjective,
so let me rephrase.  I do think that crypto is being used by fewer
people than I want.  I also believe that setting an example is a good
thing, because it signals an achievable task to those who are
considering doing it.

When I first proposed server actions last year, it was with the full
realization that I wouldn't be signing my own posts and would thereby
be subject to the delay (the first-proposed action).  This post isn't
signed either.

Eric