On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Peter wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
YTfFYyyfDDk676 (different from time to time of course).
And this will help how?
If there is a harnivore system somewhere triggering on nontext codes
it will start wasing serious time
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Peter wrote:
Anyway the short answer seems to be: A digitally signed (with a certificate)
.AND. explicitly undisclaimed [1] email message .MAY. be legally binding .IF.
tested in court under .SOME. jurisdictions.
Peter (or John)
[1]: phew, what a word. 'undisclaimed' ?!
Peter wrote:
I meant, how will this help against the fact that, if you sign your
emails, they are legally binding?
It would not.
Then why did you say it would? /me is confused.
But then nothing else would.
Not true. Not signing trivial emails would. A recommendation, I might
add, that you
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Peter wrote:
I meant, how will this help against the fact that, if you sign your
emails, they are legally binding?
It would not.
Then why did you say it would? /me is confused.
Ahh, now you have reached the opinion of the public ;-) As I pointed
Peter wrote:
Let me expand on this: Not all (more exactly: most) digital signatures
are digital signatures in this context. In particular, f.ex., signing
an email with a *private* public key that is shown only to qualified
individuals on demand (and a court would certainly not qualify) is
Michael Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Change your online id to single-letter strings of just one letter,
Like:
zzz zzz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suggest you take a look at advanced search syntax of google for a start.
Google Hacks and book and j0hnny's website may be an
Alon Altman wrote:
What if I sign my messages with a public key, but include a
statement in
the message that the signature is only for authentication purposes
only and
does not serve as a commitment to anything written in the message?
I don't know. It may work. It may not. I am not a
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Alon Altman wrote:
What if I sign my messages with a public key, but include a
statement in
the message that the signature is only for authentication purposes
only and
does not serve as a commitment to anything written in the message?
I don't
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 12:15 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Deniability and signature are, as far as I can see, mutually
exclusive.
I wonder how Off-the-record ( http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ ) works
then. I'm not a cryptology expert, but I can tell you that it allows
people to IM each other,
Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I understand the law (again, not from reading it), it does not
list specific algorithms that should be used or specific procedures for
Mistake #1, and counting. I did point out before, that certain MUAs implicitly
sign the message by
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Ira Abramov wrote:
Quoting Michael Vasiliev, from the post of Thu, 01 Feb:
What reason do you have to believe that your identity is worth stealing?
If you are truly paranoid I suggest two things:
1. Change your online id to single-letter strings of just one letter,
On Sunday 04 February 2007 08:07, Ira Abramov wrote:
Quoting Michael Vasiliev, from the post of Thu, 01 Feb:
What reason do you have to believe that your identity is worth stealing?
Ira, some people are paranoid, don't look for logic, it is a mental thing.
--Ariel
--
Ariel Biener
Peter wrote:
3. Digitally sign your email. Not like the peasants do by adding four
lines of gpg crud, put it in a custom header instead.
Do NOT, under any circumstances, adopt a policy involving digitally
signing each and every outgoing email.
According to the law in Israel (and in other
:56 +0200
From: Ariel Biener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ira Abramov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ILUG linux-il@linux.org.il
Subject: Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
On Sunday 04 February 2007 08:07, Ira Abramov wrote:
Quoting Michael Vasiliev, from the post of Thu, 01 Feb:
What reason do you have to believe
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Peter wrote:
3. Digitally sign your email. Not like the peasants do by adding four
lines of gpg crud, put it in a custom header instead.
Do NOT, under any circumstances, adopt a policy involving digitally
signing each and every outgoing email.
+0200 (IST)
From: Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Shachar Shemesh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ira Abramov [EMAIL PROTECTED], ILUG linux-il@linux.org.il
Subject: Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Peter wrote:
3. Digitally sign your email. Not like the peasants do
Peter wrote:
You mean *gasp* m$ mail agents which produce a message id that
uniquely identifies the sender, the machine, the time, and the message
are ok, but not a signature ?
Yes. That's what I mean.
According to the law in Israel (and in other countries too), digitally
signing an email is
On Sunday February 4 2007, Peter wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Ira Abramov wrote:
Quoting Michael Vasiliev, from the post of Thu, 01 Feb:
What reason do you have to believe that your identity is worth
stealing?
If you are truly paranoid I suggest two things:
Ok, I am, after all, only human.
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote:
find fun stuff.
You underestimate them. You are just wasting bandwidth.
Actually I hope 'they' will bother to break the 'code'. Because the
plaintext tag says 'fuzz=...' (and it used to say 'pigbait'). Sorry I
have fun memories from other
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
YTfFYyyfDDk676 (different from time to time of course).
And this will help how?
If there is a harnivore system somewhere triggering on nontext codes it
will start wasing serious time and producing huger reports for its
masters if 5% of email
On 05/02/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not underestimating anybody but the current rules seem to indicate
that all mail is read and sifted through for 'clues'. This is
technically feasible. Pumping large amounts of random numbers and
nondeterministic behavior into these channels is a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:10 PM
To: Shachar Shemesh
Cc: ILUG
Subject: Re: ID theft (offtipicish)
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
YTfFYyyfDDk676 (different from
Peter wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
YTfFYyyfDDk676 (different from time to time of course).
And this will help how?
If there is a harnivore system somewhere triggering on nontext codes
it will start wasing serious time and producing huger reports for its
masters if
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Amos Shapira wrote:
On 05/02/07, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not underestimating anybody but the current rules seem to indicate
that all mail is read and sifted through for 'clues'. This is
technically feasible. Pumping large amounts of random numbers and
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Micha Feigin wrote:
If you think that this is going to bother any semi intelligent system then you
are not only paranoid, you are a very naïve paranoid. It won't spend an extra
millisecond or produce an extra line in the report for whatever master it has.
I can build a
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Micha Feigin wrote:
It's a very useless countermeasure
I love it when several list members chip in to say how 'useless' a
measure is. Thanks for the feedback.
Peter
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL
Quoting Michael Vasiliev, from the post of Thu, 01 Feb:
What reason do you have to believe that your identity is worth stealing?
actually I have something to add to that: how does a name on a list help
an identity thief? there's not enough information here about you to
abuse it.
one of these
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 02:03 +0200, Michael Vasiliev wrote:
Quoting Jonathan Ben Avraham, from the post of Tue, 30 Jan:
Hi RP,
What reason do you have to believe that your identity is worth stealing?
So, a man decides to call himself Random Penguin, rather than, say, Daniel
Johnson
Quoting Jonathan Ben Avraham, from the post of Tue, 30 Jan:
Hi RP,
What reason do you have to believe that your identity is worth stealing?
identity thievs give as much care to whose identity they abuse as much
as an attack script cares if it's carpet-scanning machines that are
Linux or
On 1/31/07, Ira Abramov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the question is, why does he think that calling himself Random Penguin
is any protection :-)
Because given the right tools - all is possible.
See mixmaster, http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/483
--
Buy one, get one free!
Ira
On Wednesday January 31 2007, Ira Abramov wrote:
Quoting Jonathan Ben Avraham, from the post of Tue, 30 Jan:
Hi RP,
What reason do you have to believe that your identity is worth stealing?
identity thievs give as much care to whose identity they abuse as much
as an attack script cares if
31 matches
Mail list logo
