On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 05:30:36PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2017, at 09:47 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> >What all of this means is that once a list passes N members, where
> >we can debate about N, the probability that at least one of those
> >members has already been compromised ev
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 09:54:48AM +1100, Morgan Reed wrote:
> I'd submit that this is tantamount to saying "it's impossible to make a
> 100% secure system so why bother even trying".
Then you're not grasping my point. Let me try again.
I suggest that you re-read what I've written *and* consider
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 08:10:03PM +0100, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Even if not every device is secure, the difficulty, and likely cost,
> for an attacker to snoop on the communications is much greater for an
> encrypted mailing list is than for a non-encrypted one.
The difficulty is greater -- but
