[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I can promise you that there is NO connection between Jay and CM. > > They're on completely opposite ends of the clue spectrum, CM > > representing one of the very few extant examples of an almost total > > clue vacuum. > > Definitely - look at the sender domain and you know what pranksters are > behind this. > > Cheers, j.
Thanks, guys. I'm usually not so easily surprised. I'd just ignored the posts until Curt Purdy <purdy at tecman.com> replied, at which time I went back and reread them. I've got nothing but respect for Jay; he's a sharp guy. Hence the amazed confusion at seeing [EMAIL PROTECTED] as an apparently valid email address. It's just as well I'd replied, just in case some poor innocent was considering anything in either of those as worthwile. Who knows? Perhaps a couple of newcomers to the field went off and wandered through the attrition archives. Plenty to see; it's a good education, of sorts. For those to whom those pages had all new (or mostly new) information, next stop is Bruce Schneier and back issues of Cryptogram. Then go visit cryptome. Finding any of those is an exercise to the reader. -- Lisa Dean, chief privacy officer for the Transportation Security Administration, applauded (Google acquiring Acxiom), noting that the CDI system would be designed to detect terrorist conversations in Gmail (also Google) and forward the relevant email correspondence to law enforcement. -*-No Comment-*- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
