From: Michael Froomkin <mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu>
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 95 11:16:31 PDT
To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Mail to mail.cypherpunks "newsgroup" echoes to list
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.91.950903141403.541101819G-100000@umiami.ir.miami.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I have been getting a load of duplicate mail from this group; not all 
messages are duplicated, only those cc'd to mail.cypherpunks as well as 
sent to the toad.com address.

I don't know if this is a gateway to a local newsgroup or what, but I 
wish the duplication would stop.  Thank you.  

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu
U. Miami School of Law     | 
P.O. Box 248087            | It's hot here.  And humid.
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA |
See (experimentally & erratically) http://viper.law.miami.edu/~mfroomki

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 1995 08:38:54 -0600 
From: Piete Brooks <Piete.Brooks@cl.cam.ac.uk>
To: lyal collins <lyalc@ozemail.com.au>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, Piete.Brooks@cl.cam.ac.uk
Newgroups: mail.cypherpunks
Subject: Re: A bold ssl idea ? 

> I understand that setting up RC4 keys is slower that testing for the correct
> key (I may have misuderstood this bit).

For pure RC4, Yes.  However, SSL is not pure RC4.

> Is it considered practical to modify the brutessl code to have multiple
> message data, and test each against a key from allocated key space ?

You are the third person I've heard think of this.
[ The first did quite a lot of calculations before spotting the problem ! ]

> If so, this may mean that perhaps 3 message can be tested against a single
> in the time two single keys could be tested against one message.

Well, the original suggestion I heard was to try 64K at a time :-))