Michael Graff explorer at flame.org
Mon Jun 23 22:36:18 EDT 1997

Michael Bruck <micha at tecnet.de> writes:

> I don't like this climate of mistrust at all that we have now here. The
> developers don't trust the participants, the participants don't trust
> the developers. There is nearly no communication about these concerns
> between these two groups. Interested developers who have ported the 
> clients to exotic platforms don't know what happens to their work and
> if it will be made worthless by disabling the old keyservers.

The mistrust issue is a very hard one to handle.

The developers believe that releasing the source is a bad idea
and will cause lots of people to write "spammers" and ruin their

The participants distrust any source they have that will run for
long periods of time without having the source handy to compile from.

I really think there is a techonological solution in here somewhere.
We are, after all, trying to break an encrypted message.  Why not
use encryption to protect the traffic itself?

I proposed some time ago that a two-key method might work best.  That is,
clients have an embedded secret key which they can use to communicate
with the server.  This is hard since the participant (aka ass in this
case) could eventually find the key.

However, if each participant ALSO had a special identifier, handed out
on a web site, this might work better.

This identifier is really another encryption key, and is used to verify
that the person sending in the results is really who they claim to be.

The downside of this is that now two different entities have to be
formed:  the email address of the participant, and the team they
want to be on.

What a mess.

It's disapointing that 0.001% of the people on the net are large enough
asses to ruin the fun for the 0ther 99.999% of us who just want to get
this done.

To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.

More information about the rc5 mailing list