On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:45:52AM +0200, E. Hietbrink wrote:
> Usually the chances that that alternative set of data makes is
> a valid and sensible tar file is zero.

Emotionally valid but mathematically incorrect.  Add the word "near"
just before the word "zero".  With faster processors and farms of
compromised machines to draw from, the effort required to create a valid
tar by adding compensating garbage must surely be decreasing.  I'd bow
to actual mathematical analysis though, and so should you, Zach.

> Usually people upload them to a PGP key server, like james':
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=quozl%40us.netrek.org&op=index
> (is the last one really yours James?) 

All three are mine.  Sigh.  AE2466C0 is my current for that identity.

Good reply, Erik, saved me some typing.  ;-)

I'll add one more ... with spam rates up so high, one of my next steps
is to only accept digitally signed messages.  And once they catch on to
that, only if the signature is trusted.  This means, Zach, that unless
you can get into crypto mail, you'll be on the outer, eventually.

Web mail and crypto ... forget it.  Get a real mail account.  ;-}

James Cameron    mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org     http://quozl.netrek.org/

vanilla-devel mailing list
vanilla-devel at us.netrek.org