On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Ian Grigg wrote:
>On Tuesday 25 March 2003 12:07, bear wrote: >But, luckily, there is a way to turn the above >subjective morass of harm into an objective >hard number: civil suit. Presumably, (you >mentioned America, right?) this injured party >filed a civil suit against the person and sought >damages. You honestly haven't heard of Fred Phelps? He has thirteen children and nine of them are lawyers. Estimated costs to sue the guy are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Estimated costs for him to defend are near zero. Plus the instant you file that civil suit you'll have his zombies loudly picketing your home (that's right, your private residence) 24/7 until you stop. >> And we're going >> to continue to have this problem for as long as we continue to >> use unencrypted SMTP for mail transport. > >I would agree. Which is why we are having >this discussion - how can we get this poor >victim's traffic onto some form of crypto so >she doesn't get her life ripped apart by some >dirtbag? ISP's don't want to support encrypted links because it raises their CPU costs. And mail clients generally aren't intelligently designed to handle encrypted email which the mail servers could just "pass through without decrypting and encrypting". I think a new protocol is needed. The fact that SMTP is unencrypted by default makes it impossible for an encrypted email form to be built on top of it. Bear --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]