On 10/12/20, Stefan Claas <[email protected]> wrote: > Stefan Claas wrote: >> | Stefan, I got: >> | >> AgAAAHYwSAAAAO+xQIT5meBNroABRxnwz1nF8Apub/z5OiqCftZUpGTBbcejwe6XQF4lpAnhW9YG >> | NAl9/zdLkj8FOG2NQmhbx82HXJv1Ju2c1w== >> | from you. Is this the same encrypted message as the one you sent? I'm >> expecting that it is.
AgAAAHYwjgEAACeQYcUutIj71LXOwf6SZU3wiTMAhlKBNAw552GqDynQ4nKtGX2l+5beCjexTFSW +MTj6dbJhjfTVpRzalwY19NSWrjeFZpy3WLi78oz3Yh/Tt7tLI630KJUO5vlAOqLM8IJmV4//ZeG 2AQgpofe61FXDm8H/SXRNFGD9K3Y/sIwtFbzGgyNJxEMIILTtkGCuWvr3Ub6nS06m4PuwP4Eeu0a ObmohUDGnXNuKEiULvyBbP2X05+s5ogXrzN5lh3pAW3q345kWDteqvqdS3o6baVTYthEb63m5dRg vIPIeto8v0ZBqJ9zZqIGPKlthQ9u0TXHR4xrdUUWKVxZfyOP906PPSmmoc10zQtWR3Bw9rZ3ym9Y HxXSu8YvnvGqH+IHzn4qYZYh+WywfcNwoygyNVKuswXDSbz1okDq0yMixIoi6at5ZHCJZDmu9KJx +LwUQWw7FYR9u2TqFsb+/w8snk9SI8gBTQW4jDoDDbGYYySDQqJA4SOhATwEMRuBySZEQbJ+qtlv zpPl4upnvipG > > BTW. NaClbox messages are authenticated, so no one can send you a message > in > my name, if they are not in possession of my private key. This avoids then > also to use signatures, like with GnuPG. > > And the IMHO cool thing about NaClbox is that it is much easier to use and > learn than GnuPG. Why do you not use naclbox to communicate all the time? Couldn't it even be used for the cypherpunks mailing list, if the mailing list had a shared receiving private key, to verify that each person is saying what they intend? k's thinkpad, tor source folder, c72e81da09e333bc8804205bcfcf3bd8821cad61ad862d57114339e5ee00a664
