1996-11-11 - Re: Rarity: Crypto question enclosed

Header Data

From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
To: “David K. Merriman” <merriman@amaonline.com>
Message Hash: a6811040bb8fec28fed49f7d9ead953466f905a2df5faf7939c4de7e7745651c
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.94.961110173427.5826D-100000@kinch.ark.com>
Reply To: <199611102102.NAA17006@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-11 02:41:27 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:41:27 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dave Kinchlea <security@kinch.ark.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:41:27 -0800 (PST)
To: "David K. Merriman" <merriman@amaonline.com>
Subject: Re: Rarity: Crypto question enclosed
In-Reply-To: <199611102102.NAA17006@toad.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.94.961110173427.5826D-100000@kinch.ark.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sounds a little like Hesiod to me.

cheers

On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, David K. Merriman wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Date: Sun Nov 10 15:03:35 1996
> Sorry that this message doesn't include any flames, "outings", 
> denigrations, or other stuff......
> 
> My simple question is regarding key/certificate distribution:
> 
>         Is there any particular reason that such can't be accomplished via 
> on-line lists, and made available via a service on a port, using standard 
> (textual) commands, like mail and such are now?
> 
>         The things that come to mind are a 'client' request for a key, a 
> 'client' submission of a key, an external host requesting a key exchange, 
> and the host itself requesting a key exchange with another system (only 
> new/changed keys being swapped).
> 
>         The way I see it working is similar to (but not as slow as, or 
> requiring the human intervention) of the key servers already existing. 
> Granted that the first few such servers might carry a higher load, but I'd 
> think that would taper off as the (presumably free) software became 
> available, similar to the growth of remailer software (which would seem to 
> be a fairly reasonable relationship....).
> 
>         Hooks into existing PGP-fluent software shouldn't be difficult with 
> a standardized protocol, and I wouldn't think that the servers would be 
> that difficult to code and implement on a 'standard' (consistently used, 
> that is) port.
> 
>         I'm willing to have a try at the first server, if the parameters 
> can be defined.
> 
> Dave Merriman
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> 
> iQCVAwUBMoV+S8VrTvyYOzAZAQHlMQP/eU3F2JyaQcU6tQ+J5iCdAdPKiBNORJGT
> chgNauyaH/dHwj+DzcKZzhmjabsICGZjPbJvH+DIvnbGx3eGF1Y2HUAHvt5ab4ww
> gfPJ7xfjwNUJPyrTQtp7lXVdB5BVfSw/I2lHzSg1ssRvTo4iF+gIoAQypOT1Z617
> Fo/c1h77KgA=
> =pkk/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 






Thread