From: "William A. Kennedy" <PITCC05.KENNED09@SSW.ALCOA.COM>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 07:12:27 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: cypher bickering
Message-ID: <PITCC05.KENNED09.524355090094339FPITCC05@SSW.ALCOA.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


                         internet: kenned09@ssw.alcoa.com

I am a relatively new member to this list.  There is so much potential for
great discussion because the topic is technically challenging and politically
sensative.

That's why it is extremely frustrating to see the list contributors, and it's
moderator  getting all tied up in their collective underwear over whether or
not the moderator can and/or force people to affix a digital signature to every
posting.  What's worse, they seem to stay up through the night just to bicker
about it.  In the paper world, I send out many things that I don't sign.  I
don't sign them because it is of no significance that it be proven that I sent
it.  It also might be that the information is of such a general nature that it
makes no neverminds who sent it.  I submit that digital signatures are the same
way.

But, as Tim May proposed, it could be the "secret-decoder-ring" phenomenon at
work.  By digitally signing all of our postings we prove that we are committed
members of the "cause."  But to whom are we proving our dedication.  We would
be demonstrating it to people who, by nature of their own interest in this
list, are already committed.  Oh, but wait a minute.  Maybe we're afraid that
people who don't even own digital signature software, are posting there ideas
on our favorite subject.  Isn't the posting of any ideas on cryptography by
anyone more important than who's doing the posting?