>From: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Oct 28, 2005 12:09 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Return of the death of cypherpunks.
>From: Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> .. >> 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. Well, political controversy seems like the least interesting thing about the list--to the extent we're all babbling about who needs killing and who's not a sufficiently pure libertarian/anarchocapitalist and which companies are selling out to the Man, the list is nothing special. The cool thing is the understanding of crypto and computer security techology as applied to these concerns that are political. And the coolest thing is getting smart people who do real crypto/security work, and write working code, to solve problems. The ratio of political wanking to technical posts and of talkers to thinkers to coders needs to be right for the list to be interesting. .. > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > AnKV4N6f9DgtOy+KkQ9QsiXcpQm+moX4U09FjLXP > 4zfMeSzzCXNSr737bvqJ6ccbvDSu8fr66LbLEHedb --John Kelsey