1997-08-12 - Re: Comments on PGP5.0 OCR

Header Data

From: Ian Sparkes <isparkes@q9f47.dmst02.telekom.de>
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com
Message Hash: d8fc74375535bc158ce78f40079753708de8f85957b51193585a3c25006c14d7
Message ID: <3.0.2.32.19970812150519.006ac9ec@q9f47.dmst02.telekom.de>
Reply To: <199708111432.PAA00907@server.test.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-12 13:12:40 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:12:40 +0800

Raw message

From: Ian Sparkes <isparkes@q9f47.dmst02.telekom.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 21:12:40 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com
Subject: Re: Comments on PGP5.0 OCR
In-Reply-To: <199708111432.PAA00907@server.test.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970812150519.006ac9ec@q9f47.dmst02.telekom.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 17:46 11.08.97 +0200, you wrote:
>At 15:32 11.08.97 +0100, Adam Back wrote:
>>
>>Mark Grant <mark@unicorn.com> writes:
>>> 
>>> I just wanted to make a few comments on the proofreading, in case 
anyone
>>> feels like releasing software in a similar manner in future:
>>> 
>>> [...] the OCR-ed pages at HIP included a per-line
>>> checksum. This was good... but... it also checksummed the 
whitespace. 
>>> This wasn't a problem in theory, because tabs were indicated by a 
special
>>> character. However, most lines had both tabs *and* spaces and 
there was no
>>> way to see where the spaces were because they were overrriden by 
the tab
>>> (e.g. "mov<sp><tab>ax,23<sp><sp><tab><sp><tab>; Stuff"). 
>>
>>How about a book full of 2D barcodes?  
>>
>>As a plus perhaps the book would be more compact, as you could gzip 
it
>>first -- the full source tree looks to be over a foot of 
doublesided
>>paper!
>>
>
>How about importing the scanned in source (in electronic form) back 
into
>the States and doing a 'diff' there. This could produce an 
electronic
>patchfile to repair the mistakes in the scanned in code, meaning 
that the
>whole of the code could be cleaned up in one go. This patchfile 
could then
>be exported as it holds no crypto source code. (Somehow this seems 
*too*
>simple. Would this perhaps get up the US gubmint's nose? Have I 
missed some
>nuance or implicit limitation?)

How far could this be pushed? In the extreme case we could supply a 
file full of junk (random bytes) and then apply a patch to it to turn 
it into source code.

>
>>Adam
>>-- 
>>Have *you* exported RSA today? --> 
http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
>>
>>print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo 
"16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
>>)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp
"|dc`
>>
>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM/BtnbgTZRKKFcAJAQFNlwP/ZhB2NZZv0qAuytMf2VLfLGV6mtY9vq/H
J4Z5q3wBzhoLPNaXJ3exdQ1+z+5CdHYFS9hvmeDCEi0wKLNzMZMZPIRVAsgCUgbo
I7lMvrRmV6Ajl/vuw7dLerv7oWDjI+G9kOpWLGrMdySUrYrVZlqm4o+hGb7/NPxE
uWVqFBBI9CU=
=wkOi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----






Thread