At 22:24 09/19/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 1:03 AM -0400 9/20/00, Asymmetric wrote:
At 13:47 09/19/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:
(P.S. Lose the toad.com address. Get a clue. Or, since you appear to be
a luser, "loose the toad.com address.")
You keep sending to it yourself. Mind expla
At 02:21 09/20/2000 -0400, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
You should read up on Type 1 and Type 2 remailers. Both involve
encryption. In the case of Type 2 remailers, you only need to trust
one in the chain that you use in order to be sure that your identity
is securely hidden.
I do understand how
At 10:54 09/19/2000 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 17:08 2000-09-18 -0400, you wrote:
That the list be changed so that unregistered email addresses cannot send
messages to it? This spam is getting ridiculous.
I suppose you know why we don´t have that (the remailing issue). But I
kinda
At 10:24 09/19/2000 -0500, Anonymous Coward vomited:
Hey, Retardo -- when did you ever check? If you had, you'd know
that you can't reply to anon remailers. Try replying to this, you clueless
shit. Now shut the fuck up about this bullshit, we're all tired of the
subject, and if you can't
At 13:36 09/19/2000 -0700, you wrote:
You fucking idiots who want "closed" lists have several choices:
Can you come up with any kind of explaination whatsoever for referring to
what may admittedly be a minority of people trying to make constructive
comments about how to just reduce the
That the list be changed so that unregistered email addresses cannot send
messages to it? This spam is getting ridiculous.
---signature file---
PGP Key Fingerprint:
446B 7718 B219 9F1E 43DD 8E4A 6BE9 D739 CCC5 7FD7
"I don't think [Linux] will be very successful in the long run."
"My
At 01:44 09/09/2000 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
Not incorrect, but 2**256 possible keys gets you into
age-of-the-universe territory for cracking.
Well yes, but better safe than sorry.. you never know when the next
breakthrough might come that makes anything under 256bits "weak." Not too
At 02:06 09/08/2000 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
You can still do CBC with UDP. You might want to look at hybrid solutions,
like basic connectivity and voice connections on UDP and separate TCP
connections
for data transfer, though that may be more trouble than it's worth.
I've thought about it
At 15:08 09/07/2000 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
Servers are the price of scalability. The nice thing about ICQ
and similar instant messaging applications, unlike IRC,
is that the server only tracks who's on and where, and doesn't carry
the actual communication traffic between users. Obviously
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 02:07 09/07/2000 -0400, dmolnar wrote:
Erastothenes, I think.
I don't know what a sieve of eros is. I think I'd like to try one
sometime. :
Hah yeah that spelling looks right.. it's really pretty elegant, and was
considered at the time of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 01:21 09/07/2000 -0400, dmolnar wrote:
The modulus should be rather large -- something like 512 or 1024 bits.
With 64 bits, someone can use Pollard's method to find discrete logs in
roughly 2^32 trials, which is Bad. Taking discrete logs for
11 matches
Mail list logo
