From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 13:01:26 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Warm, fuzzy, misleading feelings
In-Reply-To: <199412012011.MAA09700@python>
Message-ID: <199412012200.OAA13845@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: "Dr. D.C. Williams" <dcwill@python.ee.unr.edu>

   I would prefer to teach fewer of them to speak than teach a larger number
   of them to grunt.

I would rather that the fewer speak and that the rest grunt rather
than remain silent.

   A bogus signature is, of course, unverifiable. Why waste effort requiring
   something as non-functional as a spoofed signature?

For the architectural changes that have to be made to do such a thing
automatically.

   Why? Even AOlers can make a bogus sig as a .sig file and attach it to
   every outgoing message.

But this doesn't create even a bogus signature.  There's still a line
at the top to add.  This misunderstanding about what constitutes valid
syntax colors your whole argument.

   Then the vast majority of grunters will put a spoof in their .sig files
   and be "done" with crypto.

.sig spoofing won't work; it's only the bottom half.  That's the whole
point, is that some active action must be taken, be it once to set up
something automatic or many times with each message.  In the first
case, the automaticity is obtained, a postive benefit of itself.  In
the second, a value is recalled to mind each time.

   I'm disappointed that your
   original objective has been compromised by an "automatic-spoof-is-good
   -enough" clause.

It's not good enough, but it is partial progress.  Merely because one
technique doesn't accomplish everything is no reason to abandon it.

Eric