From ld231782 Sun Nov 14 23:45:09 1993
Return-Path: <ld231782>
Received: from casco.lance.colostate.edu by longs.lance.colostate.edu (5.65/lance.1.5)
	id AA24431; Sun, 14 Nov 93 23:45:05 -0700
Message-Id: <9311150645.AA24431@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Cc: ld231782
Subject: some pseudopool FUN
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 93 23:45:04 -0700
From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782>
X-Mts: smtp

S.Boxx:
> <sigh> nobody is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here. the
> people who have most maneuvered themselves into a position to aid
> future cyberspace are instead constraining it. that's the point, isn't
> it? gosh, how could I have been so blind...

T.C.May:
>I think its because we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you
>do.  Personally, I consider it a necessity.  I like being able to hide
>behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you).  I don't see
>pseudospoofing as "constraining".  On the contrary, I see it as
>freeing us.

E.Hughes, on Pseudospoofing software
>No the software isn't mine, but I consider myself it's God Father.
>Tim May and I were talking about this a long
>time, and he just beat me to learning enough PERL to write the thing.
>But I'd like to think that the two of us did most all of the design of
>it.  So, in a way, it is my software.

Nick Szabo:
>As an example, look at Ender's Game, where Ender's brother and sister
>get on the net under pseudonyms, and get treated just like everyone
>else.  There is no biases.  People are judged on their actions and
>words, not by who they are, how old they are, what they look like, or
>anything like that.  Maybe you are blind, I don't know.  I've never
>met you.

Arthur Chandler:
>And, as I said, it is not the job of the Keyserver to provide any sort
>of policy.  The job of the Keyserver is to distribute keys.  Nothing
>more.  Nothing less.  The job of identifying True Names is solely a
>job for Digital Signatures, not a job for the Keyserver.  

Jamie Dinkelacker:
>I oppose using it in a bogus fashion because the software is not
>designed for such a use, there is absolutely no protection for it (any
>key can be added), because I, and all the other Keyserver admins,
>believe that all the keyservers should be interconnected, and because
>I feel the job for determining a True Name on a key is a job for
>Digital Signatures, not for the Keyserver.  

Perry Metzger:
>I am a cypherpunk.  I don't believe in trusting something on faith
>alone, but you seem to be asking for that.  There is no way to protect
>such a reckless use of the Keyserver.  The only way to provide a
>secure way for True Names is to Cryptographically identify them.

Hal Finney:
>So, Mr. Detweiler, why do you oppose using Digital Signatures to
>verify True Names?  I mean, besides that you consider yourself a
>Cypherpunk? ;-)