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)
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-----
>
Return to November 1996
Return to “dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)”