> *There is no secure communication over an insecure channel > without out-of-channel bootstrap*.
At first blush this seems nice and formal, but it's pretty much incoherent. "There is no secure communication over an insecure channel" is a tautology. An insecure channel is one which *by definition* cannot support secure communication. This statement is trivially true. It gets worse if we go on. "There is no secure communication over an insecure channel without out-of-channel bootstrap." Now you've gone from tautology to paradox: you've defined the channel as insecure, except that with some magic pixie fairy dust you can communicate securely over it ... but that would mean the channel was secure, when you defined it as insecure. Paradox. You start from tautology and conclude at paradox. This doesn't appear to be something to be taken seriously. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
