Re: encrypting the list (Was Re: Insecurity of public key)

[Eric Johnson <ejohnson@pmip.dist.maricopa.edu>]

: Eric Johnson says:
: > I don't think "adjust[ing] on a case by case basis" is necessary.
: > I was suggesting just the opposite.  It obviously isn't a security
: > issue.  I believe it is more of a first principles issue; "Thou
: > shall encrypt thy communications, lest thou draw attention to thy
: > self, and the right be removed by thine opponents."
:
: You miss the point, Eric. We are advocating that IN THE FUTURE all
: communications should be encrypted. However, FOR THE MOMENT this is
: often impractical. Cypherpunks write code in an effort to try to bring
: this future closer. However, making our lives impossible right now
: will delay that future.

This is hyperbole.  It would not make our lives impossible.  And
far from delaying the future, as it relates to communications on
the list, I would argue that it would reduce the signal-to-noise
ratio immensely, thereby hastening the deployment of tools.  So
I don't think I'm missing the point simply by disagreeing with you.

: I encrypt things whenever possible. Some people I communicate with
: can't encrypt, so I adjust, on a case by case basis. Someday,
: hopefully within the next year or two, things will be different.
:
: Encrypting this list ever would be useless -- but fine if it would
: be easy to do. Since it isn't easy or useful, it is a bad idea.

It's usefulness depends both upon whether you think increasing the
ratio of cryptext vs. cleartext to your system is useful, and
whether easy is defined by the least capable systems on the list.

Don't worry.  I'll drop it here.

:
: Perry

BTW, you don't have to shout.  I can read upper-lower case text 
without difficulty.

	--Eric