1996-02-22 - Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)

Header Data

From: Tim Philp <bplib@wat.hookup.net>
To: IPG Sales <ipgsales@cyberstation.net>
Message Hash: e783bef30031095965dae523df6b9a46b89a19d7bee65be302ea8e05e72c755f
Message ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960221190104.18731A-100000@nic.wat.hookup.net>
Reply To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960221141844.3814B-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-22 12:06:04 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 20:06:04 +0800

Raw message

From: Tim Philp <bplib@wat.hookup.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 20:06:04 +0800
To: IPG Sales <ipgsales@cyberstation.net>
Subject: Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960221141844.3814B-100000@citrine.cyberstation.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960221190104.18731A-100000@nic.wat.hookup.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, IPG Sales wrote:

> We are reconsidering the Canadian restrictions - and may change them -
> it is certainly not the ITAR quexstion, but another matter - we expect 
> that Canadians will be included shortly - as to the question of using 

Just what is this 'other matter'

> Why do you want to make it a one way street? We believe fair is fair - if 
> you want to chop off our neck, then we should be able to tell people that 
> you tried and could not at some point in time - 

	I fail to see how this is a 'one way street'. You are interested
in feedback on your system and want us to examine it and tell you of
weaknesses. We are interested in any new system that claims to be secure
and we can learn from the developments, and yes, mistakes of others.  This
sounds like a perfect quid pro quo to me. 
	You seem to want more. You want to be able to use the 'name' of
the cypherpunks to assist your marketing for whatever benefits that you
see by exploiting our name. I say again, as others have said, we are
simply a mailing list of people brought together by a common interest in
cryptography. There is nothing to stop you from making your claims 
without our 'consent' or the 'Cypherpunks seal of approval'.
	The real problem that you have, is that there are knowledgable
people on this list who have expressed doubts about your system. These
people are well known to the press and in the security community and are
not shy about expressing their opinions (right Perry? <G>). These are the
people who you have to convince if you want to have our approval (whatever
that is).
	Look at the history of algorithms that are generally considered 
secure. The code has been placed on the net for public comment and 
review. I think that all have benefited from this process.
	You have made the same mistake as some others who posted long 
samples of marketing 'noise' to the list using all of the keywords that 
we have come to regard as 'snake oil'. I have no idea if your product is 
indeed secure or snake oil. You have not published enough information for 
any reasonable  person to make a determination. The form of your 
announcement was not appropriate for this forum or your needs.
	I submit that a better approach would have been to post the code
to sci.crypt and send a short note to this list asking for comments. 
People who ask for help, and co-operate with us usually receive help. 
People who publish marketing junk, as you did, get abused.
	Let's concentrate on substance rather than form.

Tim Philp

For PGP Public Key, Send E-mail to:
In Subject line type: