Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:03
Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:40:04 +0100
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
> > Based on what you said (as far as I understood) I'll suggest now the
> > replacement term 'a new stream encryption scheme intended to
> > achieve as best as possible the functionality of an ideal OTP'.
> > Does that satisfy all people who have sent in comments in matters
> > of terminology?
>
> Frankly, it is making you look like more of an annoyance than ever
> before. We've already told you that what you are doing is building a
> stream cipher. There is no distinction between what you are doing and
> constructing a stream cipher. ALL stream ciphers attempt to produce a
> PRNG stream that can't be broken. Yours is in no way different.
I have suggested to replace the old term with a new one that shows
that it is a stream encoding scheme because I am finally convinced
that this should be done. I was a bit slow in learning. That's it.
Is that perhaps a unpardonable sin? (I am actually waiting at the
current moment for the arrival of the post via CodherPlunks of a message
from Sandy Harris to say that I prefer the much shorter term he
suggests. I only got the one from him directly at this time.)
>
> If you wonder why people aren't taking you seriously and are not
> answering you and such, it is because you are both an amateur who
> constantly wastes our time asking us to study your constant stream of
> cryptosystems-of-the-week coded up in Fortran, and because you refuse
> to try to learn when we try to explain anything anyway.
In which matter you posted in this list do you think that I 'refuse'
to learn from you. I haven't been on the list for very long. So
I certainly have missed much of your publications. Or do you mean
by 'refuse' the 'refuse' to accept to rename my proposal as
'stream cipher'? Now Gillogly first criticized my terminology.
I tried to agrue for keeping the old name. But this is quite common
in scientific arguments. If Gillogly had written back, pointing
out more clearly that the argument I made is wrong, I would have
sooner done the renaming. But he didn't wrote. At his place you made
a categorical statement which conveyed, frankly speaking, not much
useful information for me. Does this suffices to clear up the
point?
>
> If you think this isn't very "scientific" of us or whatever, please
> understand that the world is FILLED with text to read. Most of us have
> a very limited amount of time in which to absorb huge amounts of
> material. When someone constantly violates etiquette and posts things
> that contain nothing interesting but demand attention, invent their
> own terminology, request that skilled professionals take time out of
> their schedule to educate you and you alone, etc, people eventually
> conclude -- in order to defend their precious time -- that you're not
> worth talking to.
I must say that I don't quite understand you at this point. If some
posts annoy you, I suppose it will do that only once. For you would
note the sender's name and not look at his posting the future. I
subscribe, for instance, to the cipherpunks list. Through that I get
a lot of spams, sometimes even things related to pornos. I simply
skipped over these From the rest there are part (not all) of certain
politically related topics that I use to skip because I have no
particular interest in them, e.g. those that are only related to US.
I personally never feel that the stuffs that I skip somehow disturb
me to any degree worthy of mention (it costs me only some mouse
movements). If you for whatever reason don't like my publications,
say because my code is in Fortran, then you can simply skip over all
posts bearing my name as sender. Isn't that very simple? There is no
'duty' to read anybody's posts nor the 'responsibility' to respond
any question or request. I understand this to be the freedom of the
internet. If you think my notion is wrong, we could discuss.
M. K. Shen
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:03