John and all, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Tuesday, December 07, 1999 10:06 -0800 "Mark C. Langston" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I believe the British parliament either has passed, or is > > about to pass, a law or laws that would make the use of strong > > encryption illegal, such that even the posession of encrypted > > documents, without the means of decrypting them, would be > > illegal. > > To repeat what Kent and I have both tried to say.... > > * From both a technological and legal standpoint, > authentication and encrytion are different. Essentially you and Kent are correct here, but technically they are very closely related. It is their use where the technical separation of encryption and authentication are relevant. As it relates to this thread (Changed subject line) there is little difference as it relates to the location of the DNSO list server, from a legal point of view, which is the point that I and Roeland are making. > > > * Nothing suggested so far on the DNSO lists requres > encryption, nor should such suggestions be necessary. > Encyption is the enemy of "open and transparent" I don't agree that encryption is the "Enemy of open and transparent" as you put it here John. It is a nice sounding statement but, in fact does not bear out in reality. Now, it could be reasonable argued as far as the DNSO list server location is concerned that "Authentication is the enemy of open and transparent", however... > > > * While regulations about encryption vary, and will probably > continue to evolve, no country bans strong authentication > techniques. Not true as I have already twice now provided links to assist in a better understanding and to clarify this point. > > > Now, there must be some part of "no restriction on > authentication" that is hard to understand, but, if so, would > someone explain to us what it is. > > Otherwise, can we return this particular red herring to the pond? You are providing the "Red Haring" in this instance John which I and Roeland have again pointed out. I know as an MCI employee and not wanting to "Rock the Boat" or to provide for a "United Front" for political purposes is likely in YOUR best interests, just as it was with Dennis Schaefer's E-mail problem dealing with "Unique Message Id's" was HIS e-mail client's problem, which we now know was not the case. I also understand clearly form a political stand point that you and I am sure Elisabeth, would like for this thread and siscession to just "Go away" as you are loosing your arguments. > > > john Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
