On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:16:15 +0200, rumours say that "Anthra Norell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> might have written:
>Why whack someone over the head who tries to develop an idea of his own. >Such an approach isn't uncommon to earn extra credit in educational >settings. I would never whack someone over the head (WSOTH) who tries to develop an idea of his own, and never will (intentionally at least --I myself like reinventing the wheel once in a while just to make sure my synapses still work). However I do WSOTH for >>I rolled my own for relatively short sequences, like passwords. The key is >>an integer. To decrypt use the negative encryption key. I consider the >>encryption unbreakable, as it is indistinguishable from a random sequence. So, to be clear, my reason was your declaring that "I consider the encryption unbreakable, as it...", and that is why I actually challenged you to either support the unbreakability of your algorithm by supplying sensitive data for you, or back off and simply say "ok guys, my words were a *little* over the top". That's all. I see you took up the challenge and indirectly replied to my last question, and in good spirit I say you earned a little respect from me, at least for standing up to your words. Now I hope no-one gives a try to your data (for your own sake :) -- TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best. "Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving." (from RFC1958) I really should keep that in mind when talking with people, actually... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
