--
From: Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While I don't exactly know why the list died, I
> suspect it was the fact that most list nodes offered a
> feed full of spam, dropped dead quite frequently, and
> also overusing that "needs killing" thing (okay, it
> was funny for a while).
>
> The list needs not to stay dead, with some finite
> effort on our part (all of us) we can well resurrect
> it. If there's a real content there's even no need
> from all those forwards, to just fake a heartbeat.
Since cryptography these days is routine and
uncontroversial, there is no longer any strong reason
for the cypherpunks list to continue to exist.
I recently read up on the Kerberos protocol, and
thought, "how primitive". Back in the bad old days, we
did everything wrong, because we did not know any
better. And of course, https sucks mightily because the
threat model is both inappropriate to the real threats,
and fails to correspond to the users mental model, or to
routine practices on a wide variety of sites, hence
users glibly click through all warning dialogs, most of
which are mere noise anyway.
These problems, however, are no explicitly political,
and tend to be addressed on lists that are not
explicitly political, leaving cypherpunks with little of
substance.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
AnKV4N6f9DgtOy+KkQ9QsiXcpQm+moX4U09FjLXP
4zfMeSzzCXNSr737bvqJ6ccbvDSu8fr66LbLEHedb
