David Honig wrote:
> >a) more encrypted traffic on the web.
>
> With known plaintext...
not a good idea, you're right.
> >b) some people might want to read cypherpunks without the intermediate
> >parties being aware of the fact (I know companies that monitor e-mail).
>
> If that's a concern, use the anonymizer (via SSL) + web archive.
imagine you only have e-mail (some companies don't want their employees
surfing...)
> >b2) running the encrypted listserver under a different name than
> >"cypherpunks" would possibly a good idea for this case.
>
> Any fixed name would get known.
sure, but IF someone monitors the traffic, "cypherpunks" is sure to
raise more suspicion than "john.doe".
