On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:33:46 +0200, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050411 00:20]:
>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:44:08PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
>> > > No, that would be stupid. This is why we have a guard against
>> > > replay attacks.
>
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050411 00:20]:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:44:08PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > > No, that would be stupid. This is why we have a guard against
> > > replay attacks.
> >
> > But if the original vote that was signed and posted publicly was never sen
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:44:08PM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> > No, that would be stupid. This is why we have a guard against
> > replay attacks.
>
> But if the original vote that was signed and posted publicly was never sent
> in, then there wouldn't be any record of the vote--so if
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 21:33:56 +0200, Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:12:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Sure. If people are gonna make signed votes public and not send
>> them in before changing their minds, that can be used to override
>> their decision. So
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:12:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Sure. If people are gonna make signed votes public and not
> send them in before changing their minds, that can be used to
> override their decision. So don't do that.
Sure :-)
But will you in future ballot consider to ad
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:44:08 -0600, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:38:51 +0200, David Schmitt
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 4 Apr
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:38:51 +0200, David Schmitt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:18:26 +0100, Matthew Garrett
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> > If I si
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:38:51 +0200, David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:18:26 +0100, Matthew Garrett
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > If I sign three votes over the course of a day and then send them
>> > in re
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:18:26 +0100, Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > If I sign three votes over the course of a day and then send them in
> > reverse order, will the votes that were signed earlier be accepted
> > even if they w
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:18:26 +0100, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:15:22 +, Matthew Garrett
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> - I'm not sure if it insists that the order of signing is
>>> consistent
>>> with th
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:38:09AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:12:36 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Well, you have just to check the devotee code is doing what it is
> > supposed to do, and that this is the actual code running on the
> > actual ball
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:15:22 +, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> - I'm not sure if it insists that the order of signing is consistent
>> with the order of receipt.
>
> Umm, I am not sure I understand what this means.
If I sign
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 04:15:22 +, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that Wesley may be thinking more along the lines of a
>> simple replay attack -- if you *do* change your mind, your earlier
>> (publically posted) ballot can be fed
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:12:36 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Well, you have just to check the devotee code is doing what it is
> supposed to do, and that this is the actual code running on the
> actual ballots, you don't really need to look at the ballots. Since
> the devotee code
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:16:21AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:34:35AM +0100, Emmanuel le Chevoir wrote:
> > > Again, sorry for beeing such an idiot :/
> >
> > Does that mean you improved your vote also? ;-)
>
> I'm lost, what was wron
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:16:21AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:34:35AM +0100, Emmanuel le Chevoir wrote:
> > > Emmanuel le Chevoir a ?crit :
> > > >- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
> > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > >
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:34:35AM +0100, Emmanuel le Chevoir wrote:
> > Emmanuel le Chevoir a écrit :
> > >- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > >46348448-74a5-40ae-a651-49704435ae8c
> > >- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 03:52:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> >On 20050325T002711+0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> >>Eh, the buyer can demand proof, the same proof a voter has to verify his
> >>vote is tallied: ask the secret token.
> >Ouch. Nasty. Bad.
> >(
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 07:06:34AM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) wrote:
> > > Just to be clear, nothing against Anthony Towns. I think he'd do
> > > alright as DPL.
> >
> > Sounds like you've asked a few people and ar
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:34:35AM +0100, Emmanuel le Chevoir wrote:
> Emmanuel le Chevoir a écrit :
> >- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> >46348448-74a5-40ae-a651-49704435ae8c
> >- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
Op do, 24-03-2005 te 17:23 -0700, schreef Wesley J Landaker:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) writes:
> > > Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 09:12:51PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> > >> > I'm amaze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I'm amazed at how little people seem to have done to inform themselves
>> about all the candidates, myself.
> Just because people vote in a way that you might not does not mean
> they are uninformed.
Indeed, it's a polite way to say that they are morons.
--
ciao,
Ma
Emmanuel le Chevoir a écrit :
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
46348448-74a5-40ae-a651-49704435ae8c
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I'm so sorry for that one, that was a really stupid mistake.
The good thing is tha
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) wrote:
> > Just to be clear, nothing against Anthony Towns. I think he'd do
> > alright as DPL.
>
> Sounds like you've asked a few people and are now hedging your bets!
Nope, my comments had nothing to do with him. I'd li
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20050325T002711+0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Eh, the buyer can demand proof, the same proof a voter has to verify his
vote is tallied: ask the secret token.
Ouch. Nasty. Bad.
(This is one of the reasons why real elections have partisan observers
present in v
* Wesley J Landaker [Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:23:34 -0700]:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:15, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Since the voter gets a return e-mail, they'd likely know about it,
> > but if the attacker was clever and threw your ballot in right before
> > the deadline, you wouldn't have enoug
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that Wesley may be thinking more along the lines of a simple replay
> attack -- if you *do* change your mind, your earlier (publically posted)
> ballot can be fed back into the system again, to reset your preferences to
> those you originally cho
On Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:15, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 02:57:43AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > >> Happily, the OP still has a chance to change his mind ;-)
> >
On Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:57, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> Happily, the OP still has a chance to change his mind ;-)
> >
> > Unless someone else sends in his already signed ballot...
>
> You c
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 02:57:43AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> Happily, the OP still has a chance to change his mind ;-)
> >
> > Unless someone else sends in his already signed ballot...
Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Happily, the OP still has a chance to change his mind ;-)
>
> Unless someone else sends in his already signed ballot...
You can send in multiple ballots. Only the last one will count. As a
resul
On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) writes:
> > Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 09:12:51PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> >> > I'm amazed at how little people seem to have done to inform
> >> > themselves ab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) writes:
> Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 09:12:51PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
>>
>> > I'm amazed at how little people seem to have done to inform themselves
>> > about all t
On 20050325T002711+0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Eh, the buyer can demand proof, the same proof a voter has to verify his
> vote is tallied: ask the secret token. Assuming md5 is a strong hash,
> this way a voter can prove his/her ballot if (s)he wishes to publicly
> (or privately) show to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) wrote:
> Just to be clear, nothing against Anthony Towns. I think he'd do
> alright as DPL.
Sounds like you've asked a few people and are now hedging your bets!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 01:13:49AM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> The point of a secret vote is to make sure vote buying is ineffective,
> since under secret ballots the buyer is unable to verify that the
> voter actually cast the ballot he or she claimed to have cast; and
> that point is p
On 20050324T135006-0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Well...
>
> So much for:
> 1) secret ballots
Secret ballots mean that the actual ballots are never published by the
secretary. It does not mean that voters are not allowed to make their
choice public (or to claim they voted in a particular way, desp
Just to be clear, nothing against Anthony Towns. I think he'd do
alright as DPL.
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Apache, Linux, Tcl Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMA
Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 09:12:51PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
>
> > I'm amazed at how little people seem to have done to inform themselves
> > about all the candidates, myself.
> Just because people vote in a way that you might not does not mean
> t
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 09:12:51PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> I'm amazed at how little people seem to have done to inform themselves
> about all the candidates, myself.
Just because people vote in a way that you might not does not mean
they are uninformed.
It just means we are all look
I'm amazed at how little people seem to have done to inform themselves
about all the candidates, myself.
--
David N. Welton
- http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Apache, Linux, Tcl Consulting
- http://www.dedasys.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
John Goerzen wrote:
> Well...
>
> So much for:
> 1) secret ballots
> 2) reading directions
Reading is a lost art nowadays.
-- Michael Weber
I'm also quite appalled by the vote. *sigh*
Regards,
Joey
--
No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too sil
Hi
John Goerzen wrote:
Well...
So much for:
1) secret ballots
2) reading directions
You should mail it signed, but not encrypted to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] You might have the same problem [0] as some
others [1] [2] [3]. You'll be listed [4] as a unique voter [5] if your
vote arrives.
Cheers
Luk
[0] h
Well...
So much for:
1) secret ballots
2) reading directions
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:44:29PM +0100, Emmanuel le Chevoir wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 46348448-74a5-40ae-a651-49704435ae8c
> [ 3 ] Choice 1: Jonathan Walther
> [ 6 ] Choice
44 matches
Mail list logo
