I’m not even done. Judging scientific contributions purely based on reputation is so beyond-the-pale callous that it simply shouldn’t be permitted on this list.
This isn’t the first time Rich discloses his incredibly vapid methodology for judging scientific output. On Saturday, he wrote [1]: > [Citing this work] is not appropriate […]: your analysis is the work of one > person and has not been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal" Like, seriously, ****ing stop. You have no idea just how offensive you’re being, dissing my work’s value based purely on my personal reputation or the reputation of the publishing venue. This behavior is completely unacceptable. If you want to critique the work, critique it by actually first reading it and understanding it, and then penning down your concerns or rebuttals. If you’re not able to do so, I don’t have to bear the brunt of your profoundly nettlesome reputational arguments for judging scientific work. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/A2tVWDqmkn7X3adgd7JSdHs9SqA/ Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 8 Jun 2026, at 4:59 PM, Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rich, seriously, cut it out. > > If you want to critique a work, critique it by reading it and providing > technical, scientific rebuttals against it. > > Counting the number of authors or the publication venue is such a stupid way > to critique scientific work. > > This is the second time you make this idiotic claim. It’s deeply stupid. > That’s not how you critique someone’s work or judge its value. > > I am absolutely certain that if the paper was *also* published on ePrint and > *also* had a single author, but that author’s name was Karthikeyan Bhargavan > or Cas Cremers, you wouldn’t be repeating this deeply brain-dead line of > reasoning. > > Nadim Kobeissi > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > >> On 8 Jun 2026, at 4:39 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/8/26, 12:28 AM, "Nathanael Ritz" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Independent machine-checked symbolic analysis using ProVerif [REF] >> >> This gives too much credit to one individual’s work that is not in a >> peer-reviewed journal or conference. Nothing against Nadim, he deserves all >> the credit for what he did, but let’s not overstate it. For example, maybe >> the first word should be “An …" >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
