From: ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} (n9505834@cit.nepean.uws.edu.au)
Date: Thu Jul 16 1998 - 00:19:21 CDT
On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, Brad Templeton wrote:
[...]
> It is not inherent that they cause problems with anonymous posting. It is
> not difficult to set up a certificate server that will grant you certificates
> for a persistent pseudonym that has no route back to you.
Could you please tell me how? I can't for the life of my work out how you
could get certify via a one way remailer.
[...]
> > amounts of overhead for management. They are *appropriate* to things like
>
> The whole idea of certificate systems is to reduce overhead for management.
However compaired to cancel locks thay generate overhead for admins.
[...]
> (A) is important because if 3rd-party signed cancel works, then people with
> old software can still post, and cancel, using challenge-response in their
> E-mail. A cancel-lock system on its own leaves people with old software
> in the lurch.
No it dosn't. 3rd party canceling if a cancle lock system where
implemented would be makeing use of a diffrent protocol then that used by
standed cancels. I've currenly got such a system in testing wich could be
modifed for whatever 3rd party cancel system we aggry on.
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia; see the url. Support NoCeM
http://www.cit.nepean.uws.edu.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument