At 9:16 PM -0400 10/28/2000, John Kelsey wrote:
I'll comment more on this from another note of yours. I
think you're probably right, but that we need to figure out
how to really nail that argument down, which means
specifying exactly what's meant by ``close to an inverse,''
or whatever.
I have
At 4:16 PM +1100 10/27/2000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
simple way to combine the AES finalists and take advantage of all the
testing that each has already undergone. And, IMHO, it is an
interesting theoretical question as well. Even if the answer
At 11:50 AM -0600 10/20/2000, Bob Jueneman wrote:
Let's put this problem in perspective, and try to avoid the "chicken
little, the sky is falling" syndrome.
It's quite unlikely that someone would come up with "Eureka!" type
of solution to factoring large numbers that would end up completely
Today's Boston Globe has a strong editorial condemning the
restraining order in the CyberPatrol case:
"The World Wide Web has become a cornucopia of free expression.
Government should impose restrictions without a trial only when the
risk of immediate harm is great. Federal Judge Edward
You have cut up my comment in a way that makes it look like I am
saying something different from what I intended. I am not saying
S/MIME as implemented in Outlook or Netscape is hard to use in
general. On the contrary, I think it is a shame that secure e-mail
clients are on most people's
At 12:02 PM -0500 3/5/2000, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...
If you think that the problem with S/MIME is the lack of an
open source client then do what the cypherpunks list *used*
to be about - write some code to do the job the way *you*
think is correct. The standard is published by the IETF
