Cryptography-Digest Digest #735, Volume #12 Thu, 21 Sep 00 18:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dr Mike's "Implementing Elliptic Curve Cryptography" - reader (JCA)
Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction (Gregory G Rose)
Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size (Eugene Griessel)
Pole Reversal is evident in Sweden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: t (John)
Re: Software patents are evil. (Bill Unruh)
Re: 3DES - keyoptions (Eric Smith)
XOR (Nikica Guscic)
Re: Double Encryption Illegal? ("Trevor L. Jackson, III")
Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size (Ogden Johnson III)
BWT CMPRESSION FOR ENCRYPTION (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: XOR ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dr Mike's "Implementing Elliptic Curve Cryptography" - reader
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:00:02 -0700
One the ECC popes (who shall remain nameless) uttered in a meeting
I attended, and for all those present to hear some very scathing comments
about this book, to the effect that it contains a number of unforgivable
technical mistakes.
Paul Rubin wrote:
> I just got this from bn.com (I don't buy from Spamazon any more).
B&N is thoroughly in bed with MS. I use Borders myself instead.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory G Rose)
Subject: Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction
Date: 21 Sep 2000 13:24:32 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<,
SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]< wrote:
<<<An alternative - which I've not seen discussed on this forum - would be
<<<to use an encryption device which is capable of encrypting variable
<<<length bitstrings, and is not confined to multiples of 8 bits. I
<<<attribute this idea to David Scott.
There is nothing new in this idea. Shame on you,
John, egging him on like that.
<<No, don't.
<<
<<Actually, encrypting that way is the 'default' idea. Otherwise, for
<<example, the arrangement illustrated in Bruce Schneier's _Applied
<<Cryptography_ called "ciphertext stealing" would never have been
<<proposed, people would just encipher the last 64 bits (or the last
<<eight bytes) of the message in normal order as a block after
<<encryption on 64-bit boundaries was concluded.
I agree.
< You mean to tell me the article talks about compressing to
<a finitely odd file and then using the last "one" to mark the
<end of the useful data. Or does it refer to whole bytes going
<into something like an 8 byte encryption block.
The MD4 hashing algorithm specification is written in terms of
arbitrary bit strings, which are padded
unambiguously with a single '1' followed by as
many zeros as are required. This document dates to
the early 80's IIRC, anyway, long before D.A.S.
was around. The real inventor is shrouded in
history or NSA/GCHQ, but Ron Rivest clearly has a
better claim.
Greg.
--
Greg Rose INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QUALCOMM Australia VOICE: +61-2-9181 4851 FAX: +61-2-9181 5470
Suite 410, Birkenhead Point http://people.qualcomm.com/ggr/
Drummoyne NSW 2047 B5 DF 66 95 89 68 1F C8 EF 29 FA 27 F2 2A 94 8F
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eugene Griessel)
Crossposted-To: sci.military.naval,alt.conspiracy,sci.geo.earthquakes
Subject: Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:47:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim) wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:15:18 -0700, Doug Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>And lo, it came to pass on Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:28:40 GMT that
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eugene Griessel), wrote thusly:
>>
>>
>>>Yep - I have rightly been slapped smartly on the wrist and taken to
>>>task by some creature calling itself Stanislav Shalunov who is
>>>indignant that I allowed my drivel to soil its pristine newsgroup.
>>
>>I'm sort of confused as to what sort of conspriacy is inviolved
>>in creating sunspots. Or why geo.earhtquakes is included. And
>>why isn't sci.astro on this list?
>
>These large electrical storms cause huge problems with submarine
>cables - induce large voltages across them, so let's include some
>of the Telecomm newsgroups as well.
>
>Perhaps measuring the voltage changes could be used as a source
>of random.
>
>--
>Jim Dunnett
>
>amadeus @netcomuk.co.uk
>nordland @lineone.net
>g4rga @thersgb.net
Eugene L Griessel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm
Snake Page - www.web.netactive.co.za/~sean
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: sci.military.naval,alt.conspiracy,sci.geo.earthquakes
Subject: Pole Reversal is evident in Sweden
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:38:46 GMT
Thank you very much for the solar flare, sunspot warning.
I saw it with my naked eye, albeit with some protection.
Obviously, some usenet readers did not appreciate your encryped
messages. I caught at least 7 or 8, ... were there more?
Cryptology is nothing without satellites, just ask anyone in the military
intelligence loop. What a shame if the proton flares should decommission a
SAT!
http://www.geocities.com/antarii_rescue/TOMBShistory.html
http://www.geocities.com/antarii_rescue/index2.html
http://www.geocities.com/chemosh_of_ammon/NGC1987A.html
http://boudiccaarran.tripod.com/index.html
They say that next year or the year after that up to 50% of plant and fragile
animal life indigenous only to Sweden will be wiped out by the increased
temperatures already evident the last couple of years up there near the north
pole.
The Swedish government is seeking greenhouses outside of the country to
save the species. Two kudos for Sweden! The other was standing up to the
London Stock Exchange and batting down a merger with the Frankfurt
Exchange.
Good luck.
Sasha
ps: a pole reversal would create sizable earthquakes too, to defend the
person who posted the solar flare post to sci.geology.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:49:58 +0100
In article <8qdoro$j4c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, zapzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes
>In article <8qcise$l6i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Pornin) wrote:
>> According to Douglas A. Gwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > Others who have approached this problem have usually assumed
>> > more commonality among the communicants
>>
>> On a slightly different point of view, read "The Forever War" from
>> Joe Haldeman.
>>
>> There is also the classical "Stranded on Venus" problem: some
>scientists
>> have a technical problem on the ground of planet Venus. To get back to
>> the orbital station, a button must be pushed on the control panel of
>the
>> station, but there is nobody left to push that button... except some
>> bypassing (and altogether cooperative) aliens.
>>
>> The scientists manage to establish a radio communication with the
>> aliens, and build up some sort of language (they are *good*
>scientists).
>> But the main problem is that there are two buttons on the panel. The
>> left one is the one to be pushed. The other one is the self-destruct
>> command.
>>
>> How will the scientists and aliens agree on the notion of left and
>right ?
>
>OK, Helpful Aliens. Just take a look at the third planet
>from this here star. It's got a Nitrogen, Oxygen atmosphere
>with a bunch of other neat stuff. The "northern" hemisphere
>is the one with most of the land masses on it. If you are
>standing with your back to the sun, and looking at Earth
>(the third planet) with your head pointing north, and your
>feet pointing south (opposite of north) then a point on the
>planet on the sunny side will be moving left to right (or
>is it right to left?).
But my eyes are in the back on my head.
--
John
e.p.s You need a space after the two dashes before your sig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Software patents are evil.
Date: 21 Sep 2000 21:21:46 GMT
In <HXsy5.2330$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
]Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
]news:8qdf0a$dj3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
]> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
]writes:
]> ]> Patents had has almost nothing to do with software until recently. Yet,
]> ]> you could not say that software has suffered in the US.
]>
]> ]Well, given that we have no control against which to test the history of
]software in the
]> ]US, and given that the software industry is fairly young there does not seem
]to be much
]> ]that can be said in a definitive way. Yet, for the purposes of discussion, I
]can take a
]> ]Devil's advocate position. Resolved: that the low quality of US software is
]due to the
]> ]lack of an effective protection for intellectual property.
]>
]> Low quality is almost always due to a lack of comptetition, not a lack
]> of intellectual property rights. The USSR had immense itelletual and
]> other property rights protections-- manufacturers were handed monopolies
]> on all kinds of goods. There is no evidence whatsoever that this
]> resulted in the manufacturers spending time and effort to make sure that
]> their products were the best possible. Just the reverse.
]Why do you continually insert the monopoly practices of the former USSR into
]the discussion? What, it happend there so it could happen here? The issue isn't
]whether state sanction monopolistic practices are good or bad but whether
]the particular one under discussion is. Hey, they were bad. Guess what, they
]are gone. Move on.
Because it is an example of a country which instituted precisely the
kind of restrictions on the economic system, for reasons which are very
similar to the reasons which you give. Of course it is not the same. Of
course it differs in detail. But your argument is that monopoly leads to
better products for the consumer. My counterargument is that it does
not, as has been tested by various countries. One should learn from
history, not just "move on" or we will repeat all of the same mistakes.
The USSR did not get where it was on purpose or through evil intent. It
was trying to set up a much fairer economic system than the predatory,
wasteful, exploitative capitalist system, a system which would produce
more and better goods for the consumers without the costs of capitalism.
It failed. Monopolies are not a good idea. Patents are monopolies.
Thus the question arises as to whether the benefits which accrue to
society through the conditions set on the monopolies granted by patents
outweigh the costs that monopolies invariably bring with themselves.
In the case where those benefits do not clearly and demonstrably (not
thoeretically) outweigh the costs, monopolies should not be granted, and
then should be granted for as short a time as possible and still reap
the clear benefits to society.
In my opinion software patents do not fulfill these criteria. They grant
monopolies without a clear benefit ( except of course to the
monopolist).
YOur arguments were all theoretical and of exactly the kind used by the
Soviets to justify their experiment.
]> ]First, the low quality is evaluated against what we know could/should be done
]rather
]> ]than against what is done in other countries (where IP protection is even
]less
]> ]effective). Second, the observation that intellectual property is not
]effectively
]> ]protected is demonstrated by the Lotus 123 suits (vs Visi and vs clones) and
]the
]> ]Xerox/Apple vs Microsoft/HP suit. I submit that there was appreciable
]intellectual
]> ]property at issue, and that the good guys lost.
]>
]> Well, I sure would not argue that the good guys lost in the Look and
]> Feel cases, if that is what you refer to. Those cases were ludicrous.
]> Their only purpose was to stifle competition.
]>
]> ]The central thesis is that lack of effective IP protection lowers the
]barriers to entry
]> ](generally perceived to be a good thing) and lowers the potential payoff by
]diluting the
]> ]market for good software with bad software (generally perceived to be a bad
]thing).
]>
]> Yes, just like coffee. We should institute laws that only allow say
]> starbucks to open coffee shops in any city. Think of how great the
]> coffee would be then! Competition does far far more for increasing
]> quality than does nay intellectual property protection.
]Too much prior art for such a grant. The reason it hasn't happend is that the
]process you deride will not allow it. You are citeing its hypothetical
]non-operation
]as an example of its poor operation.
No, I am not claiming this as an example where a patent should be
granted but an example where one could argue that a monopoly should be
granted to bring about the kind of benefits you listed as arising from
monopolies.
The first question one needs to answer is whether monopolies should be
granted at all. (patents and copyright are both monopoly grants). Then,
if so, under what conditions should they be granted. My claim is that in
the first approximation they should not be granted. They have too many
flaws. Competition is far more effective in delivering the consumer
goods than is any monopolistic practice.
If one believes that they should be granted, under what conditions? I
believe that the conditions should be very stringent, and that the
monopoly should be granted only for as short a time as at all possible
in order to reap the supposed benefits to society (not the monopolist).
In software I see no evidence whatsoever of any benefit to society of
granting such monopolies, and huge costs. People are willing to write
software, people are willing to write software for free, and of a very
high standard (see Linux as an example). In the face of that evidence to
claim that software would only get written if monopolies were granted
seems to me to fly in the face of all evidence. The software industry
took off with no patents. patents as a corporate tool in software has
really only taken ahold in the past few years, and is being used to
stifle not enhance competition and innovation. As in a criminal court,
the evidence should be there beyond a reasonable doubt that the monopoly
is essential befor any such monopoly should be granted.
]>
]> ]If effective IP were available it would be worth investing great effort into
]being the
]> ]best. Without effective IP protection such effort is wasted because it can
]be cloned
]> ]cheaply and the fruits squandered. Some consider this a good thing in that
]it makes
]> ]whatever accidentally turns out to be good (more accurately popular) widely
]available
]> ]within a short time span.
]>
]> ]Others consider this to be a bad thing because there is a positive
]disincentive toward
]> ]quality. It costs time. And the sine qua non of modern software marketing
]is to be
]> ]first rather than best.
]>
]> And you raplidly have to be best as well, or you are out.
]>
]>
]> ]In the short term, we can economically purchase the best that is available in
]the market
]> ]because any innovation is rapidly emulated. In the long term the best that
]is available
]> ]in the market is far lower that it would be because there is no incentive
](differential
]> ]advantage) for production of better software. Since short term effects
]dissipate and
]>
]> I disagree completely with this anticompetitive stance. Barriers to
]> competition simply enrich the monopolists, and do not lead to
]> improvements.
]The intent of the patent process is to remove barriers to competition and
]therefore stimulate innovation. You can rightly cite some examples where the
]Process has failed or been abused to do the opposite. So what? No law or
]practice
]shall be allowed unless it is demonstratably perfect in the presence of a
]determined
]adversary? Wasn't it the Polish who had a practice that regulations could only
]be
]passed by unanimous approval of their senate.
]>
]> ]long term effects accumulate, at some point past initialization the market
]will be
]> ]dominated by long term effects, and saturated with bad software.
]>
]> Just like it is saturated with bad coffee? Wouldn;t it be nice if we
]> only had one coffee company, one car company( with no imports allowed),
]> one runhing shoe company,... Think of how great all of our products
]> would be then!
]> The arguements you give were exactly the arguements made by the
]> Communists in setting up their economic system. Competition is wasteful.
]> Competition means that the manufacturers spend all their time wasting
]> time worrying about their competitors rather than worrying about how to
]> make the best product for the consumer. Unfortunately that is not the
]> way the world works. Competition is the best incentive for improving
]> both the range AND quality AND price of products in the vast majority of
]> situations. It is not universal, and there are times when limits on
]> competition are beneficial. But those need to be thought through very
]> carefully, that those anticompetitive practices really do more good than
]> harm. The problem is that all industries love anticompetitive laws--
]> they no longer have to worry since there is noone to take their market
]> away. And those industries will put immense pressure on corrupting the
]> governments to grant them anticompetitive laws. Those pressures should
]> almost always be resisted. And they should especially be resisted in the
]> software industry.
]>
]> For example, software copyrights should be reduced to say 3 years,
]> extendible to 7 is the source is published. Any more than that is just
]> silly. And given MS claim that they lost the source code for DOS, giving
]> copyright protection where the code is not made public is strongly
]> against the public interest. (Note that this would have made the Y2K
]> problem a hell of a lot more manageable.)
]You wish to ammend law on the basis of the antics of bad boy Bill?
]I'm sure he is flattered.
]>
]>
]> ]Some observers attribute the low quality of software to its commodity status,
]reasoning
]> ]that if the customers cannot tell the difference between high and low
]software quality
]> ]there will never be any reason to "waste" effort on raising quality because
]it will not
]> ]result in more sales. In fact it will result in less revenue based on
]upgrades.
]>
]> Ah, yes, the theory that governments should be there to protect the
]> stupid consumer from having to make uninformed choices.
]>
]>
]> ]But this misses the point. Customers _can_ tell the difference. But that
]difference is
]> ]dominated by cost differences. So a company that prices its software higher
]than the
]> ]competition to cover serious development effort will price themselves out of
]the market
]> ]composed of competitors who "me too!" the fruits of the development effort
]without
]> ]paying for it. So customers will always pay less for approximately the same
]quality.
]>
]> ]Effective IP would restore the balance between quality and cost and reduce
]the
]> ]domination of the first-to-market mentality.
]>
]> All the evidence is to the contrary in country after country, century
]> after century. Monopoly powers breed contempt of the consumer, not
]> heightened regard for his/her well being.
]>
]> Consumers are perfectly capable of making the choice between price and
]> quality on their own without governments and laws to "help" them.
]>
]> ]Conclusion: I can say that software has suffered in the US if low quality
]counts as
]> ]suffering.
]>
]>
]> ]Is this off topic? Perhaps not. Crypto is similar to software as an
]industry with an
]> ]abstract, almost ineffable, product. And crypto -- as an industry -- is
]younger than
]> ]software. Perhaps crypto can do better.
]>
]>
]> Not if it is going to get mandated by the government.
------------------------------
From: Eric Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3DES - keyoptions
Date: 21 Sep 2000 14:23:07 -0700
"Abyssmal_Unit_#3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> has anyone found a data sheet for the Motorola DES hardware chip?
> circa 1979?
Yes. Why?
------------------------------
From: Nikica Guscic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: XOR
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:10:36 -0700
Hey... what would be an standard attack on an binary XOR encription.
THNX
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:35:48 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double Encryption Illegal?
Frog2000 wrote:
> OK then, what is this file?
>
> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > John Myre wrote:
> >
> > > Guy Macon wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > Oh, *real* clever, Arturo. Did you think that nobody would notice
> > > > you double encrypting your post using ROT13? Well *I* noticed, and
> > > > I double DEcrypted it with ROT13 bnefor replying. So there!
> > >
> > > "bnefor"?
> > >
> > > I think there is a bug in your ROT13 implementation.
> >
> > These things are to be expected from a probabilistic decryption system.
> > ;-)
> >
> >
>
> )i#Ϳ12NB!G3,֮mz=dW
Looks a lot like a multi unicode character sequence that has been encrypted
with Rot-257.
When you offer gibberish and ask for more, what are you likely to get?
------------------------------
From: Ogden Johnson III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.military.naval,alt.conspiracy,sci.geo.earthquakes
Subject: Re: SUN SPOT 6.51 BILLION square kilometers in size
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:39:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim) wrote:
>Perhaps measuring the voltage changes could be used as a source
>of random.
One random [in s.m.n] is enough, we don't need any more of him from
any sources, whatsoever.
OJ III
[Assuming you left off the "numbers" or "noise" from random makes no
difference. Random has been a prolific source of random noise for a
*long* time. ;->]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: BWT CMPRESSION FOR ENCRYPTION
Date: 21 Sep 2000 21:26:05 GMT
I have a page at my website that looks at a common package
for using BWT to make a compressor. I look at the package
and them make modifcations that do not make the compression
fully bijective but bring it much closer. The current package
is such that if one compressed with it and then used some
blessed encryption. It is most likely that there is only one
key that could decrypt the code. This is not a good feature.
So my modification make it so that many false decryptions exist
preventing some future quantum computer from useing the fact that
most compression schemes used with encryption make it almost
certian that only one decryption can exist.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website **now all allowed**
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott LATEST UPDATED source for scott*u.zip
http://radiusnet.net/crypto/ then look for
sub directory scott after pressing CRYPTO
Scott famous Compression Page
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Tying Up Loose Ends - Correction
Date: 21 Sep 2000 21:31:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory G Rose) wrote in <8qdqq0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
>
>< You mean to tell me the article talks about compressing to
><a finitely odd file and then using the last "one" to mark the
><end of the useful data. Or does it refer to whole bytes going
><into something like an 8 byte encryption block.
>
>The MD4 hashing algorithm specification is written in terms of
>arbitrary bit strings, which are padded
>unambiguously with a single '1' followed by as
>many zeros as are required. This document dates to
>the early 80's IIRC, anyway, long before D.A.S.
>was around. The real inventor is shrouded in
>history or NSA/GCHQ, but Ron Rivest clearly has a
>better claim.
>
>Greg.
Hell maybe I invented it when I worked for Uncle Sam
since I worked for them in the 80's. The idea is a good
one so I am glad the MD4 people considered the idea.
However having it in the Specs of MD4 assuming your telling
the truth and getting people to compress in a way that
a one marks the EOF and then using that fact to make the
encryption use it is something else.
Lots of things get invernted only to be lost again.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
Scott famous encryption website **now all allowed**
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/index.htm
Scott LATEST UPDATED source for scott*u.zip
http://radiusnet.net/crypto/ then look for
sub directory scott after pressing CRYPTO
Scott famous Compression Page
http://members.xoom.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE EMAIL address is for SPAMERS***
I leave you with this final thought from President Bill Clinton:
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XOR
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:01:50 -0400
Nikica Guscic wrote:
> Hey... what would be an standard attack on an binary XOR encription.
Depends on what you mean by that term.
If you mean a Vigenere encipherment (repeating-key polyalphabetic,
which for binary means either (0,1)->(0,1) or (0,1)->(1,0) as the
only two possible (reversible) alphabets), then step 1 is to find
the key length via autocorrelation of the ciphertext, step 2 is to
accumulate frequencies (of 0 and 1) for each "column" (ciphertext
considered as stacked with row width = key width), step 3 is to
match column statistics in order to categorize each column as type
A or type B, step 4 is to try both: assign (A,B)->(0,1) key bit;
assign (A,B)->(1,0) key bit; step 5 is to decipher using both trial
keys, step 6 is to pick the decipherment that is probably the
plaintext. Or, if you know (or can guess) a section of plaintext,
usually at the beginning of the message, that is longer than the
key length, use that to recover the key (P XOR C = P XOR (P XOR K)
= (P XOR P) XOR K = 0 XOR K = K). Overlaps from different key
cycles should agree if the guess is correct. Having the key, now
simply decipher the message.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
