1995-01-12 - Re: How do I know if its encrypted?

Header Data

From: “James A. Donald” <jamesd@netcom.com>
To: Mark Oeltjenbruns <marko@millcomm.com>
Message Hash: 6e951070e175efc3ac917574b7a86303f5dc90fc23cb8e9975f7b469539afccd
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9501112015.A12481-0100000@netcom8>
Reply To: <m0rSFsb-000kfuC@mill2.millcomm.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-12 05:29:13 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 21:29:13 PST

Raw message

From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 21:29:13 PST
To: Mark Oeltjenbruns <marko@millcomm.com>
Subject: Re: How do I know if its encrypted?
In-Reply-To: <m0rSFsb-000kfuC@mill2.millcomm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9501112015.A12481-0100000@netcom8>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 11 Jan 1995, Mark Oeltjenbruns wrote:
> (3) Peform a histogram analysis on it, if it doesn't pass a certain
> threshold reject the whole thing.  Although cute, I don't like this one.

Why not -- sounds cool to me.   It is also very fast, and does not
take much programming.

It will stop all cleartext.  Probably some pictures would get through,
so it would not stop mailbombings, but a volume limitation per 
apparent user and apparent destination would stop mailbombings.

A volume limitation sounds like a lot of work to program though.



 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our       
property, because of the kind of animals that we    http://nw.com/jamesd/
are.  True law derives from this right, not from    James A. Donald
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.        jamesd@netcom.com







Thread