On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 01:06:37PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> Peter Gutmann wrote:
> > ... to a statistically irrelevant bunch of geeks.
> > Watch Skype deploy a not- terribly-anonymous (to the
> > people running the Skype servers) communications
> > system.
>
> Actually that is pretty anonym
Peter Gutmann wrote:
> ... to a statistically irrelevant bunch of geeks.
> Watch Skype deploy a not- terribly-anonymous (to the
> people running the Skype servers) communications
> system.
Actually that is pretty anonymous. Although I am sure
that Skype would play ball with any bunch of goons th
Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Providing a suitable e-mail security solution for the
> masses strikes me as more important than providing
> anonymity to the few people who want or need it. Not
> that you can't have both, unless you want everyone to
> use PGP or S/MIME as a way to hide anonymized traff
StealthMonger writes:
>Connection-based communication such as Skype and OTR do not provide this
>capability. The hop by hop store-and-forward email network does. This is not
>busted or wrong. It's essential.
... to a statistically irrelevant bunch of geeks. Watch Skype deploy a not-
terribly-
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:06:04AM +, StealthMonger wrote:
> Alec Muffett writes:
> > In the world of e-mail the problem is that the end-user inherits a
> > blob of data which was encrypted in order to defend the message as it
> > passes hop by hop over the store-and-forward SMTP-relay (or UUC
Alec Muffett writes:
> In the world of e-mail the problem is that the end-user inherits a
> blob of data which was encrypted in order to defend the message as it
> passes hop by hop over the store-and-forward SMTP-relay (or UUCP?) e-
> mail network... but the user is left to deal with the effect
--
> > We discovered, however, that most people do not want
> > to manage their own secrets
StealthMonger wrote:
> This may help to explain the poor uptake of encrypted
> email.
There is very good uptake of skype and ssh, because
those impose no or very little additional cost on the
end
Alec Muffett wrote:
Naq bs pbhefr lbh unir gb nepuvir pbcvrf bs gur ybofgre, abg gur fbhc.
If we still had finger-plans, this would have made its way into mine.
What a great quote!
/ji
PS: For the rot13-impaired, it reads "And of course you have to archive
copies of the lobster, not the
On 8 Dec 2008, at 21:13, JOHN GALT wrote:
The iconic Paper explaining this is "Why Johnny Can't Encrypt"
available here: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1251435
Orlbaq gur "Jul Wbuaal" cncre - sbphfvat hcba hfnovyvgl - V guvax
gurer vf n uvture ceboyrz bs vagrebcrenovyvgl naq vasbe
On 8 Dec 2008, at 22:43, David G. Koontz wrote:
JOHN GALT wrote:
StealthMonger wrote:
This may help to explain the poor uptake of encrypted email. It
would
be useful to know exactly what has been discovered. Can you provide
references?
The iconic Paper explaining this is "Why Johnny Ca
JOHN GALT wrote:
> StealthMonger wrote:
>
>> This may help to explain the poor uptake of encrypted email. It would
>> be useful to know exactly what has been discovered. Can you provide
>> references?
>
> The iconic Paper explaining this is "Why Johnny Can't Encrypt" available
> here: http://p
StealthMonger wrote:
> This may help to explain the poor uptake of encrypted email. It would
> be useful to know exactly what has been discovered. Can you provide
> references?
The iconic Paper explaining this is "Why Johnny Can't Encrypt" available
here: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=
"James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, the old cypherpunk dream is a system with end to end
> encryption, with individuals having the choice of holding their own
> secrets, rather than these secrets being managed by some not very
> trusted authority
> We discovered, ho
13 matches
Mail list logo
