Cryptography-Digest Digest #169, Volume #13 Thu, 16 Nov 00 18:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: vote buying... (Eric Lee Green)
Attacks on the key setup in RC4? (sorry "Arc4") (Ichinin)
Re: vote buying... (Eric Smith)
Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ?? (Eric Smith)
Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ?? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ?? ("Paul Pires")
Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ?? ("Paul Pires")
Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ?? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: vote buying... (David Wagner)
Is Triple DES the BEST Algorithm ? ("Laurent")
Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ?? ("Paul Pires")
RSA question (shren)
Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ?? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: Help - Microsoft CryptoAPI and SDK (Greggy)
Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ?? ("Paul Pires")
Re: voting through pgp ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: vote buying...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:11:43 GMT
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:47:49 -0700, Dan Oetting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The envelopes can be opened and the ballots shuffled by a closed machine
>to protect the secrecy of the ballots. The process can be verified by
>repetition, testing with sample ballots and public inspection of the
>hardware and software. Only one layer of envelope may be necessary.
You are assuming that El Dictatador has not rigged the voting machines.
This is my whole problem with the entire concept of voting machines.
This isn't a new concern, by the way. Harry Harrison wrote an entire
novel about how to corrupt an electronically-recorded election ("The
Stainless Steel Rat For President").
--
Eric Lee Green There is No Conspiracy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.badtux.org
------------------------------
From: Ichinin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Attacks on the key setup in RC4? (sorry "Arc4")
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:53:53 +0100
Hi.
Does anyone know of any attacks on the "key setup"
(or whatever one should call it) on RC4? I know
there are some onservations on using it as a PRNG,
and mr C. Hall mentioned something on cycles at
Crypto 99, but are there anything else?
(I only have papers from 81-97...:oP)
Thanks in advance,
Glenn
Ichinin (.SE)
"Anything-over-IP-&-802.11"-Solutions provider.
===============================================================
NOTE: EMAIL ADDRESS IS FOR SPAMMERS, IT WILL BOUNCE REGARDLESS.
------------------------------
From: Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: vote buying...
Date: 16 Nov 2000 12:23:27 -0800
"Frog2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm....mincing words, I think. Anyway, am I to assume you aren't from US?
Why would you assume that?
>> In general in the United States the government does not have the
>> power to grant privileges. Any time you hear about them doing so,
>> you should immediately be suspicious that they're exceeding their
>> authority.
> I wouldn't put you on Gore's or Bush's legal team.
Thank you!!!
> We are testing these very notions as we speak.
Note that I didn't say that the government *doesn't* grant privileges,
only that it doesn't have the legal *power* to do so. They routinely
overstep their official powers, and only part of the time get reined
in by the courts.
------------------------------
From: Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ??
Date: 16 Nov 2000 12:26:07 -0800
"Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In patents, like in most specialized areas of interest, obvious has a
> special meaning.
Apparently not an obvious one.
If obvious doesn't mean the obvious thing, what does it mean?
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ??
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:30:41 +0100
Paul Pires wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would feel better if examples were cited that adhered to
> a less general and more rigorous process. A white paper
> with source code, An acedemic publication, a publicized
> contest submission. Along those lines.
>
> Rarely are claims drafted as broad as the discussions
> mentioned. To anticipate them, the discussions would
> need to be a little more substantial and definitive.
When I say that one can permutate the round keys
of a (any) block cipher, do I have to write code to
show that? If I did, with a particular cipher, the
code is only for a 'particular' cipher. But it is the
principle that is at issue.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ??
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:56:13 -0800
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Paul Pires wrote:
> >
> > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would feel better if examples were cited that adhered to
> > a less general and more rigorous process. A white paper
> > with source code, An acedemic publication, a publicized
> > contest submission. Along those lines.
> >
> > Rarely are claims drafted as broad as the discussions
> > mentioned. To anticipate them, the discussions would
> > need to be a little more substantial and definitive.
>
> When I say that one can permutate the round keys
> of a (any) block cipher, do I have to write code to
> show that? If I did, with a particular cipher, the
> code is only for a 'particular' cipher. But it is the
> principle that is at issue.
If principles are not patentable, How can they be
Prior art? Think about it. Saying one can do it and
"teaching" how it is done are two different things.
I'm not saying that you have to do anything. I am saying
that your every utterance doesn't have the same weight
as reduction to practice or substantial work to disclose.
Your example above is perfect. So general as to
be meaningless. If I permute round keys of a specific
cipher for a specific reason, in a specific way
that is new and novel...
maybe even usefull...
to achieve a new or superior result...
Does your "Prior art" read over it?
Nope. If it did the examiners would have to consider
every speculative flight of imagination from T.V. shows
to romance novels for "Similarity".
Why did you do it?
What exactly did you do?
What did you achieve?
What are the limits and parameters of the process?
What did you teach?
You have left much room for me to substantially improve
the art.
Your "Prior art" only keeps me from claiming it as broadly
as you do. Maybe not even that.
Paul
BTW...
What news reader are you using. I wish I could format my
original text as well as you have repaired it in your post :-)
>
> M. K. Shen
>
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ??
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:06:45 -0800
Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In patents, like in most specialized areas of interest, obvious has a
> > special meaning.
>
> Apparently not an obvious one.
>
> If obvious doesn't mean the obvious thing, what does it mean?
>
Don't get testy, around here "entropy" doesn't match that found
in most dictionaries :-)
Oh boy... I'm doing this from memory so don't zing me if I slip a
digit.
As it effects the validity of patents, Obviousness is defined in
US35 sect 102b.
Its applicability is probably also modified by various
precedents from various legal actions. I believe Bruce put it in
the legal section of Applied Crypto but I am away from my
nest and just guessing.
Paul
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ??
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:30:28 +0100
Paul Pires wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Paul Pires wrote:
> > >
> > > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I would feel better if examples were cited that adhered to
> > > a less general and more rigorous process. A white paper
> > > with source code, An acedemic publication, a publicized
> > > contest submission. Along those lines.
> > >
> > > Rarely are claims drafted as broad as the discussions
> > > mentioned. To anticipate them, the discussions would
> > > need to be a little more substantial and definitive.
> >
> > When I say that one can permutate the round keys
> > of a (any) block cipher, do I have to write code to
> > show that? If I did, with a particular cipher, the
> > code is only for a 'particular' cipher. But it is the
> > principle that is at issue.
>
> If principles are not patentable, How can they be
> Prior art? Think about it. Saying one can do it and
> "teaching" how it is done are two different things.
>
> I'm not saying that you have to do anything. I am saying
> that your every utterance doesn't have the same weight
> as reduction to practice or substantial work to disclose.
>
> Your example above is perfect. So general as to
> be meaningless. If I permute round keys of a specific
> cipher for a specific reason, in a specific way
> that is new and novel...
> maybe even usefull...
> to achieve a new or superior result...
> Does your "Prior art" read over it?
>
> Nope. If it did the examiners would have to consider
> every speculative flight of imagination from T.V. shows
> to romance novels for "Similarity".
>
> Why did you do it?
> What exactly did you do?
> What did you achieve?
> What are the limits and parameters of the process?
> What did you teach?
>
> You have left much room for me to substantially improve
> the art.
>
> Your "Prior art" only keeps me from claiming it as broadly
> as you do. Maybe not even that.
So I have to, among others, explain what a permutation
is alike like a school teacher tells his pupils, in
your opinion?? When we discuss in a certain environment,
certain contexts can be assumed, don't we?
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: vote buying...
Date: 16 Nov 2000 21:32:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wagner)
>One thing that I do find interesting about the Presidental election
>system is the lack of preferental voting.
Maybe only a cynic would point out at this point that the two major
parties have an interest in keeping the current system the way it is,
but I guess noone will dispute that preferential voting does give
third parties more power, for better or for worse.
------------------------------
From: "Laurent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Is Triple DES the BEST Algorithm ?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:51:01 +0100
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ??
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:51:24 -0800
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Paul Pires wrote:
> >
> > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul Pires wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would feel better if examples were cited that adhered to
> > > > a less general and more rigorous process. A white paper
> > > > with source code, An acedemic publication, a publicized
> > > > contest submission. Along those lines.
> > > >
> > > > Rarely are claims drafted as broad as the discussions
> > > > mentioned. To anticipate them, the discussions would
> > > > need to be a little more substantial and definitive.
> > >
> > > When I say that one can permutate the round keys
> > > of a (any) block cipher, do I have to write code to
> > > show that? If I did, with a particular cipher, the
> > > code is only for a 'particular' cipher. But it is the
> > > principle that is at issue.
> >
> > If principles are not patentable, How can they be
> > Prior art? Think about it. Saying one can do it and
> > "teaching" how it is done are two different things.
> >
> > I'm not saying that you have to do anything. I am saying
> > that your every utterance doesn't have the same weight
> > as reduction to practice or substantial work to disclose.
> >
> > Your example above is perfect. So general as to
> > be meaningless. If I permute round keys of a specific
> > cipher for a specific reason, in a specific way
> > that is new and novel...
> > maybe even usefull...
> > to achieve a new or superior result...
> > Does your "Prior art" read over it?
> >
> > Nope. If it did the examiners would have to consider
> > every speculative flight of imagination from T.V. shows
> > to romance novels for "Similarity".
> >
> > Why did you do it?
> > What exactly did you do?
> > What did you achieve?
> > What are the limits and parameters of the process?
> > What did you teach?
> >
> > You have left much room for me to substantially improve
> > the art.
> >
> > Your "Prior art" only keeps me from claiming it as broadly
> > as you do. Maybe not even that.
>
> So I have to, among others, explain what a permutation
> is alike like a school teacher tells his pupils, in
> your opinion?? When we discuss in a certain environment,
> certain contexts can be assumed, don't we?
Don't try and make it sound trivial or childish. I thought I
added a little bit to the discussion. I didn't say
you had to define the elementary terms. If you get to pick
representative examples for my words then I start to look
pretty silly. I don't need help there!
You don't have to do
anything. But, if you want to achieve an effect, a reasonable
amount of work may be required.
When you cite these discussions as prior art, what parts
are valid? All of those that "Teach" your method or the
corrections, contradictions, denials and rebuttals?
Your right, contexts are assumed all the time. Do you
walk away thinking that yours are the only ones?
Get this straight, I have never seen a definitive
conclusion to one of these threads yet. You're just
remembering your side of them. I acknowledge
that I am an under-achieving plodder but I am not
an elementary school pupil. With work and effort
I may yet achieve that goal.
This might be a good point to ask ourselves
"Have we been understood/do we understand
and are we now playing for points?"
Paul
>
> M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: shren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RSA question
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:14:21 GMT
I have in my lap the Handbook of Applied Cryptography, open to page
286. I have a question about encryption step b. "Represent the message
as an integer m in the interval [0,n-1]", where n is the product of the
two distinct random primes.
Does this mean that a message needs to be divided into blocks such that
these blocks are numerically smaller than n?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
shren.net
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ??
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:16:23 +0100
Paul Pires wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Paul Pires wrote:
> > >
> > > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paul Pires wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would feel better if examples were cited that adhered to
> > > > > a less general and more rigorous process. A white paper
> > > > > with source code, An acedemic publication, a publicized
> > > > > contest submission. Along those lines.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rarely are claims drafted as broad as the discussions
> > > > > mentioned. To anticipate them, the discussions would
> > > > > need to be a little more substantial and definitive.
> > > >
> > > > When I say that one can permutate the round keys
> > > > of a (any) block cipher, do I have to write code to
> > > > show that? If I did, with a particular cipher, the
> > > > code is only for a 'particular' cipher. But it is the
> > > > principle that is at issue.
> > >
> > > If principles are not patentable, How can they be
> > > Prior art? Think about it. Saying one can do it and
> > > "teaching" how it is done are two different things.
> > >
> > > I'm not saying that you have to do anything. I am saying
> > > that your every utterance doesn't have the same weight
> > > as reduction to practice or substantial work to disclose.
> > >
> > > Your example above is perfect. So general as to
> > > be meaningless. If I permute round keys of a specific
> > > cipher for a specific reason, in a specific way
> > > that is new and novel...
> > > maybe even usefull...
> > > to achieve a new or superior result...
> > > Does your "Prior art" read over it?
> > >
> > > Nope. If it did the examiners would have to consider
> > > every speculative flight of imagination from T.V. shows
> > > to romance novels for "Similarity".
> > >
> > > Why did you do it?
> > > What exactly did you do?
> > > What did you achieve?
> > > What are the limits and parameters of the process?
> > > What did you teach?
> > >
> > > You have left much room for me to substantially improve
> > > the art.
> > >
> > > Your "Prior art" only keeps me from claiming it as broadly
> > > as you do. Maybe not even that.
> >
> > So I have to, among others, explain what a permutation
> > is alike like a school teacher tells his pupils, in
> > your opinion?? When we discuss in a certain environment,
> > certain contexts can be assumed, don't we?
>
> Don't try and make it sound trivial or childish. I thought I
> added a little bit to the discussion. I didn't say
> you had to define the elementary terms. If you get to pick
> representative examples for my words then I start to look
> pretty silly. I don't need help there!
>
> You don't have to do
> anything. But, if you want to achieve an effect, a reasonable
> amount of work may be required.
>
> When you cite these discussions as prior art, what parts
> are valid? All of those that "Teach" your method or the
> corrections, contradictions, denials and rebuttals?
> Your right, contexts are assumed all the time. Do you
> walk away thinking that yours are the only ones?
>
> Get this straight, I have never seen a definitive
> conclusion to one of these threads yet. You're just
> remembering your side of them. I acknowledge
> that I am an under-achieving plodder but I am not
> an elementary school pupil. With work and effort
> I may yet achieve that goal.
>
> This might be a good point to ask ourselves
>
> "Have we been understood/do we understand
> and are we now playing for points?"
I certainly would appreciate the opportunity to learn
something valuable from you. You have put forward
several questions 'Why did you do it?' etc. Let's
take the example of my suggestion of permuting the
round keys. This is in an addendum to the thread
'On introducing non-interoperability'. Which of the
quenstions do you think that I need to provide
additional materials for answering and why? Thanks.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Greggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help - Microsoft CryptoAPI and SDK
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:09:28 GMT
In article <8uhjjr$h2h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just started using Microsoft and used CryptAcquireContext() to
> acquire a context, using NULL as a default CSP (Service Provider),
> however, this method never succeeds. Do I need to load additional
> SDKs to support this?
>
> Any help will be appreciated.
All I can tell you is that I have gone through the process of
downloading the CDK from MS and used it to prove to myself that there
exists a huge hole in their CryptAPI design. I would suggest you
consider this. For more information, see www.ciphermax.com.
--
I prefer my fourth amendment rights over a dope free
society, even if the latter could actually be achieved.
Al Gore - quite possibly America's greatest threat today
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hitachi - on what grounds ??
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:20:45 -0800
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Paul Pires wrote:
> >
> > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Paul Pires wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Pires wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would feel better if examples were cited that adhered to
> > > > > > a less general and more rigorous process. A white paper
> > > > > > with source code, An acedemic publication, a publicized
> > > > > > contest submission. Along those lines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rarely are claims drafted as broad as the discussions
> > > > > > mentioned. To anticipate them, the discussions would
> > > > > > need to be a little more substantial and definitive.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I say that one can permutate the round keys
> > > > > of a (any) block cipher, do I have to write code to
> > > > > show that? If I did, with a particular cipher, the
> > > > > code is only for a 'particular' cipher. But it is the
> > > > > principle that is at issue.
> > > >
> > > > If principles are not patentable, How can they be
> > > > Prior art? Think about it. Saying one can do it and
> > > > "teaching" how it is done are two different things.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not saying that you have to do anything. I am saying
> > > > that your every utterance doesn't have the same weight
> > > > as reduction to practice or substantial work to disclose.
> > > >
> > > > Your example above is perfect. So general as to
> > > > be meaningless. If I permute round keys of a specific
> > > > cipher for a specific reason, in a specific way
> > > > that is new and novel...
> > > > maybe even usefull...
> > > > to achieve a new or superior result...
> > > > Does your "Prior art" read over it?
> > > >
> > > > Nope. If it did the examiners would have to consider
> > > > every speculative flight of imagination from T.V. shows
> > > > to romance novels for "Similarity".
> > > >
> > > > Why did you do it?
> > > > What exactly did you do?
> > > > What did you achieve?
> > > > What are the limits and parameters of the process?
> > > > What did you teach?
> > > >
> > > > You have left much room for me to substantially improve
> > > > the art.
> > > >
> > > > Your "Prior art" only keeps me from claiming it as broadly
> > > > as you do. Maybe not even that.
> > >
> > > So I have to, among others, explain what a permutation
> > > is alike like a school teacher tells his pupils, in
> > > your opinion?? When we discuss in a certain environment,
> > > certain contexts can be assumed, don't we?
> >
> > Don't try and make it sound trivial or childish. I thought I
> > added a little bit to the discussion. I didn't say
> > you had to define the elementary terms. If you get to pick
> > representative examples for my words then I start to look
> > pretty silly. I don't need help there!
> >
> > You don't have to do
> > anything. But, if you want to achieve an effect, a reasonable
> > amount of work may be required.
> >
> > When you cite these discussions as prior art, what parts
> > are valid? All of those that "Teach" your method or the
> > corrections, contradictions, denials and rebuttals?
> > Your right, contexts are assumed all the time. Do you
> > walk away thinking that yours are the only ones?
> >
> > Get this straight, I have never seen a definitive
> > conclusion to one of these threads yet. You're just
> > remembering your side of them. I acknowledge
> > that I am an under-achieving plodder but I am not
> > an elementary school pupil. With work and effort
> > I may yet achieve that goal.
> >
> > This might be a good point to ask ourselves
> >
> > "Have we been understood/do we understand
> > and are we now playing for points?"
>
> I certainly would appreciate the opportunity to learn
> something valuable from you. You have put forward
> several questions 'Why did you do it?' etc. Let's
> take the example of my suggestion of permuting the
> round keys. This is in an addendum to the thread
> 'On introducing non-interoperability'. Which of the
> quenstions do you think that I need to provide
> additional materials for answering and why? Thanks.
Frankly, I'd rather be circumcized with a belt sander.
Paul
>
> M. K. Shen
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: voting through pgp
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:17:03 GMT
Here is a condorcet straw poll for the US presidential election:
http://www.brumleve.com/condorcet/initcondorcet.cgi
The code is available at www.brumleve.com/condorcet
I'm sure there are bugs, this is a quick hack based on some stuff that
was in the Perl Journal.
RJB
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Savard wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:25:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in
> > part:
> >
> > >A much more reasonable solution would be electronic voting inside
the
> > >current vote booths.
> >
> > Even that is dangerous, because without tangible ballots, if the
> > voting machines were, somehow, programmed to count incorrectly,
there
> > would be no way to know that.
>
> We got on to this because of the usability problems of the Palm Beach
> ballots. They're difficult to use partly because they're designed to
be
> counted by computer. One answer would be to put a computer in every
> polling booth, but have it print your final vote onto paper which can
> then be put in the ballot box by hand.
>
> Usability can be improved: you have a big touch screen, and at the end
> it shows you what you voted for and asks you to confirm before
> printing. The paper trail is still there: people can check that the
> piece of paper says what they think. The counting can be made faster:
> barcodes can be printed on each piece of paper encoding the vote
(random
> votes would have to be checked to ensure the barcode matched the
printed
> representation).
>
> It's expensive, though. I think it might be overkill for current
> ballots (the UK system of nice, clear ballots and hand counting works
> fine) but it would be *very* useful if we ever wanted to introduce
some
> fairer voting system, like Condorcet
> (http://russp.org/electionmethods.org/), which asks voters to rank
> candidates in order of preference. Otherwise I think voters might get
> too confused trying to fill out the preferences grid, and counting
would
> take too long.
> --
> __
> \/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> /\__/ http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/p
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
