On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Alan Olsen wrote:
At 02:18 AM 11/24/96 -0600, snow wrote:
The algorythm cannot be considered secure until it has been peer-reviewed. They refuse to release the algorythm for review, simply saying that "you can't break the code" therefore "it is secure".
Furthermore, in "Real Science", the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not on the one everyone else to disprove it.
So far Mr. Wood has not provided any *proof* as to the substance of his claims. He has provided some of the more interesting rants I have seen of late. (Analysis of his style of posting is probibly better left to the Psychceramics list than Cypherpunks.)
Until he posts the algorythm (or at least some basis as to why we should trust his claims), his claims are worthless. (As they would say on talk.origins: "Evidence is the coin of the realm here!".)
You are correct other than for the fact that we have posted the algorithm: http://www.netprivacy.com And we have proven that it is unbreakable, as most of you are aware. Just look at the algorithm and you will understand why! It is self evident as proven by Shannon. Also, there is no "s" in my last name, it is Wood, though call me anything that you like. Also, as far as Perry not responding to me, he does but not on the Cypherpunks list anymore. The other list is not personal, so we correspond in private, With kindest regards, Don Wood