Cryptography-Digest Digest #740, Volume #9 Sun, 20 Jun 99 12:13:02 EDT
Contents:
RC4 Susectability (c a l a n d e)
Cipher (Anonymous)
Re: CAST-256 implementation (?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Polyalphabetic Keyword Alphabets (Rebus777)
Re: Caotic function ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Kryptos article ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: DES Encryption Function and an MLP ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Kryptos article (Paul Rubin)
RSA Cryptography Today FAQ (1/1) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: AES, Hasty Pudding Cipher -- update (Horst Ossifrage)
Where can i get the code from Bruce Schniere's applied crytptography? ("J.J.")
Re: CAST-256 implementation (?) (Horst Ossifrage)
Sexual Contact Privacy ( Doug Goncz)
Re: CAST-256 implementation (?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OTP is it really ugly to use or not? ("RandAlthor")
Re: Cryptonomicon Errata in Neal Stephenson's new fiction: (John B. Andrews)
Re: IDEA in "aplied cryptography" BRUCE SCHNEIER (John B. Andrews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: c a l a n d e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RC4 Susectability
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:56:03 -0700
Last month I came across an implementation for RC4
on the web. After which I started monitoring this NG
and believe I understand how RC4 works. What I
don't know, is how secure it is. Can someone
comment on how relatively secure RC4 would be
against common cyptoanalysis?
This neophyte would appreciate any comments.
TIA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 06:11:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Cipher
This is the first cipher that i ever made, the the question for you is can
you decode the encrypted message, i will even give you the passkey
i know this is trival at best, but i need to know how you cracked it so i
can learn... please
Example #1
passkey:
easy
encrypted text:
vnkxqtrvbkgp fjy fbyufdbuzkofgd
Example #2
passkey:
whoknows
encrypted text:
ohlgrxppvehzajhst chvjbwntlygkb
Thanks
=========
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CAST-256 implementation (?)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:48:59 GMT
In article <7ke9k3$bdi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Serge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have some reason to doubt in CAST's security? This is
interesting for
> me.
Well at 48-rounds I seriously doubt the effectiveness of Cast-256.
While it may be a secure process I would rather not use a UFN because
the diffusion is not balanced and therefore biased. It has the reverse
rules but I still would not like to use it.
I personally like pure substitution (i.e SAFER) or feistel type ciphers
(where the block is divided). The diffusion and mixing is rather
balanced which means there is a quick avalanche after very few rounds.
I personally don't think CAST-256 is unsafe (what would I know
anyways), I just like the 64-bit versions because they are not UFNs
(and only have 8 rounds...)
Tom
--
PGP key is at:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rebus777)
Subject: Polyalphabetic Keyword Alphabets
Date: 20 Jun 1999 05:31:07 GMT
I thought this short file about Polyalphabetic Ciphers presents
some of the major points about this cipher and would help
the Newbi to understand it's workings better. It shows how to
avoid weak alphabets. Please comment if you have something to add.
Feel free to copy and use this file. Displaying in a nonproportional font
like courier should realine rows.
------------------------------------------------------------
KEYWORD ALPHABETS for POLYALPHABETIC CIPHERS
Keyword alphabets are desireable because it is easy to set
up a cipher with just a list of words. Letters that repeat
in a keyword are dropped. Keyword PUZZLE changes to PUZLE.
Most keywords should have a W X Y or Z in them to help
move the end of the alphabet out of its usual position.
Plaintext Alphabet: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Keyword ABLE: ABLECDFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Note how alphabet above, does not change after the letter L
and the beginning is unchanged because it starts with AB.
This is better ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Keyword PUZZLE: PUZLEABCDFGHIJKMNOQRSTVWXY
It is desireable however to have at least one alphabet that
enciphers some letters as themselves. Keyword ABDUCT gives a
good alphabet of this type.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Keyword ABDUCT: ABDUCTEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSVWXYZ
Avoid keywords that produce alphabets that cause E T & A
to encipher as the same letters in different alphabets.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Keyword PROFIT: PROFITABCDEGHJKLMNQSUVWXYZ
Keyword PERMIT: PERMITABCDFGHJKLNOQSUVWXYZ
^ ^ ^
A good keyword would be a longword that contains Z
and no repeating characters, like ZYMOTIC.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Keyword ZYMOTIC: ZYMOTICABDEFGHJKLNPQRSUVWX
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Keyword DOZEN: DOZENABCFGHIJKLMPQRSTUVWXY
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Keyword YOUNGKID: YOUNGKIDABCEFHJLMPQRSTVWXZ
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Keyword APEX: APEXBCDFGHIJKLMNOQRSTUVWYZ
The fact that X Y & Z are used less frequently makes their
encipherment as themselves less important.
Bisecting the alphabet at a predetermind point would solve
the X Y Z problem, but it makes things more complicated.
Keyword APEX ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
bisected at pos.18 RSTUVWYZAPEXBCDFGHIJKLMNOQ
Some of these thoughts can be applied to mixed alphabets also.
The more alphabets you use, the better.
-------------------------------------------------
Polyalphabetic Example:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
--------------------------
ABDUCT: 1. ABDUCTEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSVWXYZ
ZYMOTIC: 2. ZYMOTICABDEFGHJKLNPQRSUVWX
DOZEN: 3. DOZENABCFGHIJKLMPQRSTUVWXY
MEET AT REDHOUSE JUNE SEVEN PM
Plain text: MEETXATXREDHOUSEXJUNEXSEVENXPM
123123123123123123123123123123
Cipher text: KTNRVDRVQCOCMRRCVGSHNXPNVTKXKJ
Frequency: R4 V4 K3 N3 C3 T2 X2 D1 Q1 O1 M1 G1 S1 H1 J1
It would be best to leave out spaces in the plain text,
instead of substituting X. Especially in a long message.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caotic function
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 07:47:28 GMT
"John E. Kuslich" wrote:
> The comment about complex numbers and fractals is so off the mark...
If you were referring to
> Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> > By the way, the first two responses I've seen to your query,
> > by tomstdenis and Jim_101, were both wrong -- chaos has nothing
> > to do with cellular automata, nor with complex numbers.
, you clearly don't understand the subject, or you wouldn't substitute
"fractals" for "chaos", and you would know that what I said was right.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kryptos article
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 08:10:20 GMT
Jim Gillogly wrote:
> by the way: a team of NSA cryppies working in their off hours spent
> most of 1992 on it, finally getting all but the famous final 97
> characters near the end of the year. There names are still shrouded
> in mystery, as you might guess.
The actual problem is that there is still a law on the books that makes
it a Federal felony to publish the names of IC members. The law was
passed in an attempt to stop anti-war protesters from setting up CIA
employees as targets of retribution, which they had been doing.
The IC applied the law over-zealously, to the extent that several years
ago when I called the NSA switchboard to be connected to a certain
employee that I knew worked there, the operator said that she could
neither confirm nor deny that any such person worked there, thus they
couldn't patch me through to a name, just to a phone number, which I
could of course direct-dial if I knew it! Made me wonder just why they
bothered to staff the switchboard at all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DES Encryption Function and an MLP
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 07:20:14 GMT
Below is a problem relevant to cryptanalysis.
I would be interested in anyone's opinion as
to how well optimization methods might
solve it. In particular, evolution computing
methods such as genetic algorithms or genetic
programming might solve it.
There is an arbitrary funtion, F, that maps n bits
to n bits. You are not given any other information
other than the fact that this function
is invertable. The function has no parameters.
You are given an alphabet A, which consist of
symbols that are k bits wide. Strings can be
composed from the symbols. Strings are j bits
long. Let the original string be called S and
S* = F(S) where F is applied n bit blocks at
a time.
Next, you are given a string of sufficient length
that has been passed through the function n bits
at a time. At this point, sufficient length is not
precisely defined but if the problem is solveble,
it would be at least the minimal length necessary
to solve the problem.
The question is can you find an inverse to F and
if so under what cases.
Lets look at one example. You are given the
original string, S, along with the string after
it is passed through F, S*. Lets define a metric,
we will use the hamming distance to measure how
similar the two strings are. Could an optimization
method be devised to create F inverse? Let Finv()
be F inverse. Let F'inv() be an approximation to
Finv(). Let S' be the result of F'inv(S*). Let
d = hamming distance(S,S'). Is there an
optimization method that could find F'inv such
that d <= epsilon. If epsilon is set to zero then
F'inv = Finv().
Error driven evolution used to find an inverse
funtion is a common method in genetic programming.
It has been successfully applied to a wide range
of problems including boolean functions (see
Genetic Programming I, II, and III by Koza). So
the above problem could be solved by genetic
programming.
Now let assume you are not given S. Can you find
a metric d that is based only on S'? There are
various Markov models of languages that model
letter and word combinations in languages that
might be used. There are two questions that would
have to be answered. 1. How close is S' to the
modeled language. 2. Even if S' has the properties
of the modeled language, what is the probability
it is the original string. This is probabily a
function of string length, i.e. the longer the
string the better chance it would be the original
string.
As you can see, since all deterministic ciphers
are invertable we see the possibility for generic
methods for finding a decryption function.
Unfortunally, this tells you nothing about the key
used in the encryption algorithm but I suspect
that for most people who break ciphers, being able
to read the encrypted message would make them
happy enough.
Let me hear your two cents worth.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: Kryptos article
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 09:19:26 GMT
Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The actual problem is that there is still a law on the books that makes
>it a Federal felony to publish the names of IC members. The law was
>passed in an attempt to stop anti-war protesters from setting up CIA
>employees as targets of retribution, which they had been doing.
>The IC applied the law over-zealously, to the extent that several years
>ago when I called the NSA switchboard to be connected to a certain
>employee that I knew worked there, the operator said that she could
>neither confirm nor deny that any such person worked there, thus they
>couldn't patch me through to a name, just to a phone number, which I
>could of course direct-dial if I knew it! Made me wonder just why they
>bothered to staff the switchboard at all.
LOL! It was just a few years ago that NSA staff started showing
up at crypto conferences with "NSA" on their name badges. Before
that they always just said "Department of Defense".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.crypto,alt.security.ripem,sci.answers,talk.answers,alt.answers,news.answers
Subject: RSA Cryptography Today FAQ (1/1)
Date: 20 Jun 1999 10:35:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archive-name: cryptography-faq/rsa/part1
Last-modified: 1997/05/21
An old version of the RSA Labs' publication "Answers to Frequently Asked
Questions about Today's Cryptography" used to be posted here until May
1997. These postings were not sponsored or updated by RSA Labs, and
for some time we were unable to stop them. While we hope the information
in our FAQ is useful, the version that was being posted here was quite
outdated. The latest version of the FAQ is more complete and up-to-date.
Unfortunately, our FAQ is no longer available in ASCII due to its
mathematical content. Please visit our website at
http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/ to view the new version of the FAQ with your
browser or download it in the Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format.
RSA Labs FAQ Editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Horst Ossifrage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AES, Hasty Pudding Cipher -- update
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 04:03:01 -1000
Subject:
Re: Hasty Pudding Cipher -- update
Date: 1999/06/17
Roger Schlafly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard Schroeppel wrote in message
<7kc64j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >I've posted the official Tweak for HPC on the web page,
> >http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~rcs/hpc
> >along with a "recent progress" paper. The Tweak fixes
> >an equivalent-keys problem that David Wagner found.
> >The "progress" paper contains some new Pentium performance
>>numbers, and makes the argument that HPC should win because
>>it's the runaway fastest for bulk encryption on 64-bit
>>machines.
>But only fastest if you use a 512-bit blocksize, something that is
>not part of the AES spec.
>I was intrigued by your claim at the beginning that
>
>"The key size may be any (whole) number of bits."
>but "The block size may be *any* number of bits,
>even fractional bit values are permitted."
>You mean, say, that you can encrypt 1/3 of a bit?
>Or a block of pi bits?
Fractional bits occur naturally in several forms or isotopes.
For example in cache RAMs, stale bits are sometimes discarded.
String theory allow each bit to be decomposed into three
pieces, or "quarks", although they are seldom observed in
a Newtonian frame of reference. Nasty bits are often ignored
or covered up by society, while super-string theory allow
the pubic display of sub-nucleonic bit particals. Rounding
errors normally are truncated and discarded, assumed to be
'0' bits, but in fact are fractional, even irrational bits.
While pi bits have never been observed in nature, they do
occur in equations of theorists when dealing with choatic
sub-cutaneous metastacies, if only transiently.
------------------------------
From: "J.J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Where can i get the code from Bruce Schniere's applied crytptography?
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:23:29 +1200
as title,
thanks
------------------------------
From: Horst Ossifrage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CAST-256 implementation (?)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 04:12:10 -1000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <7ke9k3$bdi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Serge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you have some reason to doubt in CAST's security? This is
> interesting for
> > me.
>
> Well at 48-rounds I seriously doubt the effectiveness of Cast-256.
> While it may be a secure process I would rather not use a UFN because
> the diffusion is not balanced and therefore biased. It has the reverse
> rules but I still would not like to use it.
>
> I personally like pure substitution (i.e SAFER) or feistel type ciphers
> (where the block is divided).
Who gives a flying fuck what you personally think?
If you were a 16 year old Irish girl, then maybe
someone would care about your personal opinion,
but as a 17 year old American boy, your
opinion is about as valuable as a
3 day old cow pie.
> The diffusion and mixing is rather
> balanced which means there is a quick avalanche after very few rounds.
The avalanche is slow, due to the "quad-block" structure.
Do your homework before slapping spam all over
my badwith.
> I personally don't think CAST-256 is unsafe (what would I know
> anyways), I just like the 64-bit versions because they are not UFNs
> (and only have 8 rounds...)
>
> Tom
You can take your UFNs and shove them up your UFOs, sideways!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Doug Goncz )
Subject: Sexual Contact Privacy
Date: 20 Jun 1999 14:10:55 GMT
It is for the good of the public that the government or a health agency might
wish to keep records of sexual contacts between people. On the other hand, the
individuals involved usually wish to retain this information as private. There
is the possibility that an agency could misuse the information.
Is there any kind of public/private key system that would.... what? Allow
health workers to trace sexual contacts? Allow promiscuous individuals to brag
in a verifiable way? Allow those who wish to remain innocent to prove that they
are? Allow universal determination of paternity?
Certainly if we lined everybody up and tatooed them with numbers, took blood
samples, etc.... that might do something, but isn't there any simple available
cryptological technology, like PGP, that people can either use nor not use
without any massive registration efforts?
Any ideas?
Yours,
Doug Goncz
Experimental Machinist (DOT 600.260-022)
Replikon Research (USA 22044-0094)
http://users.aol.com/DGoncz
The ocean is the world's longest runway...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CAST-256 implementation (?)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 13:17:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Horst Ossifrage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who gives a flying fuck what you personally think?
> If you were a 16 year old Irish girl, then maybe
> someone would care about your personal opinion,
> but as a 17 year old American boy, your
> opinion is about as valuable as a
> 3 day old cow pie.
For what it's worth I am a Canadian... :)
> > The diffusion and mixing is rather
> > balanced which means there is a quick avalanche after very few
rounds.
>
> The avalanche is slow, due to the "quad-block" structure.
> Do your homework before slapping spam all over
> my badwith.
>
Well I wasn't talking about CAST-256 at this point. I was talking
about BFN's... Read the post carefully next time.
> You can take your UFNs and shove them up your UFOs, sideways!
Do you know what a UFN is? BTW I never said CAST-256 was bad, I just
said why I wouldn't use it. I could just as well pick up 5 to 6 other
AES ciphers which are much faster then it. I think that the AES CAST
cipher could have been done as a BFN with much fewer rounds, but I
wouldn't be able to judge or critic on it anyways...
Tom
--
PGP key is at:
'http://mypage.goplay.com/tomstdenis/key.pgp'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "RandAlthor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP is it really ugly to use or not?
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:12:30 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
=======_NextPart_000_0053_01BEBB83.228983E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:7k8qh4$7an$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> sb5309 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>=20
> I think so too. But I would rather burn it on CD-ROM's.
>=20
> About right software, having all that key material laying around -
> perhaps it would be proper to protect the one time pad by encrypting
> it in some way. But then it would be no safer than the encrypting =
method.
No, because the plaintext (the OTP) would be random, and so one could =
not ascertain if the correct OTP had been decrypted correctly- at least =
not until it was used to decrypt the original information (Potp). This =
means that to decrypt anything useful, the processing requirement will =
be additional to that under a standard OTP scheme, making this a good =
method.
Whether to actually encrypt the OTP, I think it would give little more =
security than a simple XOR with some constant as we are just trying to =
provide a little confusion not complete ambiguity. XOR is seriously fast =
way to process and a such a scheme would be bloody fast. Changing the =
constant may provide a good way to send to multiple recipients with the =
same OTP- not sure. What do you all think?
Marc A.
=======_NextPart_000_0053_01BEBB83.228983E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.202" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3D"" bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><BR><FONT face=3DArial>FO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in =
message=20
news:7k8qh4$7an$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...<BR>> sb5309 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])=20
wrote:<BR>> <BR>> I think so too. But I would rather burn it on=20
CD-ROM's.<BR>> <BR>> About right software, having all that key =
material=20
laying around -<BR>> perhaps it would be proper to protect the one =
time pad=20
by encrypting<BR>> it in some way. But then it would be no safer than =
the=20
encrypting method.<BR><BR><BR>No, because the plaintext (the OTP) would =
be=20
random, and so one could not ascertain if the correct OTP had been =
decrypted=20
correctly- at least not until it was used to decrypt the original =
information=20
(P<FONT size=3D1>otp</FONT>). This means that to decrypt anything =
useful, the=20
processing requirement will be additional to that under a standard OTP =
scheme,=20
making this a good method.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Whether to actually encrypt the OTP, I think it =
would=20
give little more security than a simple XOR with some constant as =
we are=20
just trying to provide a little confusion not complete ambiguity. XOR is =
seriously fast way to process and a such a scheme would be bloody fast. =
Changing=20
the constant may provide a good way to send to multiple recipients with =
the same=20
OTP- not sure. What do you all think?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Marc A.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
=======_NextPart_000_0053_01BEBB83.228983E0==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John B. Andrews)
Subject: Re: Cryptonomicon Errata in Neal Stephenson's new fiction:
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 07:23:02 -0800
When Neal signed my copy (which I read the day it came out), I mentioned
to him that it seemed like a good first book of, say, a trilogy. He
smiled, and said he wouldn't exactly call it a trilogy (because the
connections between them weren't going to be extremely tight) but that
sequels were going to happen. Good News! (I also noitced a couple of
anachronisms)
John
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, C T Skinner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cryptonomicon Errata
> Neal Stephenson's new fiction:
>
> I am up to p215 & have noted these errata:
> p54 Factoring is not 2x as hard with each extra bit,
> more like sqrt(N log N) or whatever NFS is these days
> p70 2nd line of decrypt T should be R
> p92?? earthquake damage in Manila in the 80's (this may well be true, or
> true fiction, Volcanoes,Typhoons, I may have forgotten the odd
> earthquake)
> p98 "sicks out" should be "sticks out"
>
> Do yourself a favour and get this book
> (I have not got very far, obviously, and one reviewer said that
> NS doesnt tidy up his plot lines, but so far it is delightful.
--
The opinions expressed here are my own, with an assist from Robert Heinlein, Ayn Rand,
Dr. Hunter S Thompson, Frank Zappa, and Bill the Cat.
_____________
Please remove NOSPAM from my address when replying!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John B. Andrews)
Subject: Re: IDEA in "aplied cryptography" BRUCE SCHNEIER
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 08:11:47 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Savard) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Pate Williams, Jr.) wrote, in part:
>
> >The response is intended for a wider audience that the original
> >poster. I hope you are being facetious at my expense.
>
> It's just that that sort of response _to_ the original poster - on a
> systematic basis, yet - will tend to be regarded as discouraging, or
> even taunting.
Seems to me it could just as easily be taken as a helpful hint that the
original poster should get a friend in the U.S. to request the wanted
information and forward it to him...
John
--
The opinions expressed here are my own, with an assist from Robert Heinlein, Ayn Rand,
Dr. Hunter S Thompson, Frank Zappa, and Bill the Cat.
_____________
Please remove NOSPAM from my address when replying!
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
