[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

non-transferable signatures (Re: Crypto Kong penetration.)

James Donald <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 12:08:46PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> > The fact is that most people don't see the need to either secure their
> > messages against eavesdroppers or to sign their messages. But PGP was
> > "cool" and rode the same wave that "Wired" rode.
> Few messages to the cypherpunks list are signed.

It might in fact be a dumb move to sign messages to the cypherpunks
list -- proving that you wrote whatever, when for example the USG adds
cypherpunks to it's growing list of terrorist organisations.

Similarly it might be dumb to sign private messages to other
subscribers -- some of them may turn out to be narcs, or may be
coereced into narcing etc.

You can use non-transferable signatures for private email, but it's
probably better not to sign publically posting messages, unless you
have a persistent anonymous nym unlinkable with your meat space

Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\[email protected]{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>