Am Fr 05.10.2012, 02:00:36 schrieb MFPA:
> Anyway, I would anticipate spam volumes to be lower if all messages
> were encrypted. Would the spammers invest the cpu cycles to encrypt
> their messages to each and every recipient?
They don't have to. They don't even have others to spend this CPU time
On 10/4/2012 9:12 PM, Landon Hurley wrote:
> Won't the overhead from running gpg or equivalent limit the amount of
> spam that will occur afterward anyway? The whole reason that spam works
> and is profitable is in the agreggate of millions of messages. If I
> introduce a .5 second latency, that un
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/04/2012 07:22 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 10/4/2012 7:05 PM, MFPA wrote:
>> Searching is not an insurmountable problem
>
> Problems do not have to be insurmountable to have serious effects on
> regular users.
>
> John Clizbe maintains a
On 10/4/2012 9:00 PM, MFPA wrote:
> I guess it depends what speeds you are used to. I expect about three
> minutes to search around 65,000 messages (including around 3000
> encrypted) at home using The Bat!, and a little longer at work to
> search through 2000-3000 unencrypted messages using Out
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 5 October 2012 at 12:22:07 AM, in
, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Problems do not have to be insurmountable to have
> serious effects on regular users.
Fair enough. To me, a problem that is "surmounted" by an effective
solution or work-a
On 10/05/2012 01:22 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Who says we should promote anything? Nobody ever elected me Grand
> Poobah of the Internet. I don't think anyone ever elected you, either.
> Instead of telling people what they should do, what's wrong with giving
> people options and telling them
Am Do 04.10.2012, 19:22:07 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
> Who says we should promote anything?
That is probably something that everyone has to say for himself: "If I promote
XY then probably the (or: my) world gets better." The alternative is something
like "I don't care what happens if I don't" lik
Am Do 04.10.2012, 22:09:27 schrieb Hubert Kario:
> won't the answer to that depend on the hash in question?
Probably. So the question could be changed to: For which hashes does the value
change and for which not? Limited to the hashes relevant for GnuPG operation.
Is different data with the same
Am Do 04.10.2012, 10:51:57 schrieb spam man:
> So the question is...
>
> 1.) I have two different messages that have the same hash value (a
> collision).
>hash("foo") = abcdefg
>hash("bar") = abcdefg
>
> 2.) Now you want to append identical new data to the messages and see i
On 10/4/2012 7:05 PM, MFPA wrote:
> Searching is not an insurmountable problem
Problems do not have to be insurmountable to have serious effects on
regular users.
John Clizbe maintains a 10Mb archive of every message that's ever been
posted to the Enigmail mailing list. This comprises tens of th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Thursday 4 October 2012 at 10:32:02 AM, in
, Werner Koch wrote:
> Modulo the problems of searching,
Searching is not an insurmountable problem: some email clients
(including The Bat!) manage to search in encrypted messages - but you
have
On Thursday 04 of October 2012 10:51:57 spam man wrote:
> So the question is...
>
> 1.) I have two different messages that have the same hash value (a
> collision).
>hash("foo") = abcdefg
>hash("bar") = abcdefg
>
> 2.) Now you want to append identical new data to the messa
So the question is...
1.) I have two different messages that have the same hash value (a
collision).
hash("foo") = abcdefg
hash("bar") = abcdefg
2.) Now you want to append identical new data to the messages and see if
the new hashes would still be collisions?
hash(
Hello Ilias,
When you use the "--export-secret-keys" option you will not be prompted for
a password. This also scared me the first time I ran the command because I
was thinking that my private-key could be exported by any hacker that got
on my system. But do not fear, the keys that gets exported
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/4/12 10:59 AM, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> Billions of people have learned to use banks and checkbooks at
> least somewhat securely. I think one difference here is that one
> is taught from an early age and *expected* to learn their proper
> use.
I
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:19:13PM +0200, Stan Tobias wrote:
[snip]
> Do we really have evidence people can't encrypt? For me the "johnny"
> articles were not quite clear about it (they seemed to investigate
> a different aspect). I don't believe people are stupid. They can
> learn to use crypt
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:45, expires2...@rocketmail.com said:
>
>> > Routinely encrypting *all* communications would transform the "chore"
>> > into an habitual routine that requires little-to-no intellectual
>> > effort in respect of each individual message sent or file stored. The
>> > value of t
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:45, expires2...@rocketmail.com said:
> Routinely encrypting *all* communications would transform the "chore"
> into an habitual routine that requires little-to-no intellectual
> effort in respect of each individual message sent or file stored. The
> value of the encryption w
18 matches
Mail list logo
