Re: Warm, fuzzy, misleading feelings

["Dr. D.C. Williams" <dcwill@python.ee.unr.edu>]

> 
>    From: "Dr. D.C. Williams" <dcwill@python.ee.unr.edu>
> 
>    I would prefer to teach fewer of them to speak than teach a larger number
>    of them to grunt.
>
> From Eric Hughes:
> 
> I would rather that the fewer speak and that the rest grunt rather
> than remain silent.

It is far better that the silent become speakers rather than grunters.
Grunters, and sig spoofers, add nothing to the cause they steadfastly 
refuse to participate in or join. It would be better for them to remain
silent than erode the language of the speakers.

Your proposal doesn't reward speaking. It merely allows grunting.
Most parents know from first hand experience that very
young children learn how to make complete sentences when their parents
no longer accept pointing and grunting as acceptable behavior.


>    Why? Even AOlers can make a bogus sig as a .sig file and attach it to
>    every outgoing message.
> 
> But this doesn't create even a bogus signature.  There's still a line
> at the top to add.  This misunderstanding about what constitutes valid
> syntax colors your whole argument.


Excuse me. Let's say that the smarter ones also learn how to add

---------------------BEGIN SILLY EXERCISE------------------------

at the top. Not a Herculean effort for most, and still a lot easier than
even retrieving PGP from the MIT site, to say nothing of learning how
to use it at the most basic level.

 
>    I'm disappointed that your
>    original objective has been compromised by an "automatic-spoof-is-good
>    -enough" clause.
> 
> It's not good enough, but it is partial progress.  Merely because one
> technique doesn't accomplish everything is no reason to abandon it.

If it diverts the course of progress away from the desired objective,
it deserves to be abandoned.

If my goal is increasing my endurance to be able to swim across the
lake, I'm not willing to say that making it half way across before
developing cramps and drowning is any manner of "partial progress".

My whole point is that the cause is noble and worthwhile, but this method
of achieving it is flawed, ineffective, and will do more harm than good
to the widespread of crypto. If you decide to require digital signatures, 
it would be far better to require real sigs than bogus sigs. I would urge
you to set your sights higher than the goal you've defined so as to allow
for the inevitable circumvention that accompanies any new set of requirements.
There are plenty of examples of "lowest common denominators" in society
today, and I think most people deserve (and prefer) something more than that.


=D.C. Williams	<dcwill@ee.unr.edu>