Source code for ViaCrypt: I believe I raised a point about having some trusted members of the crypto community (i.e. cypherpunks) examine the source under non-disclosure. Well...? This is an entirely reasonable demand. There are people in this list who are highly placed professionally, who own companies that are worth a reasonable sum, or who own houses at least, and therefore who can be trusted by ViaCrypt to not blow the gig because the resulting lawsuit would cost them mightily. So we trust those folks because they're part of this community, and ViaCrypt would trust them to not blow their NDA because they could be sued all to hell. Also from ViaCrypt's perspective, think of the marketing value of having the product independently certified or validated. That would certainly be worth something. NOw if Viacrypt refuses to go with this, that fact in and of itself would be harmful to their position: it would be a virtual admission that their system was dirty. The question is, who here wants to take this on...? To me the point is very straightforward: we have an interest in privacy, and the legal issues around privacy... the fight to preserve "underground" crypto fits into this picture, but I can't see any justification for boycotting or trying to tear down ViaCrypt simply because they're charging a fee for it and are making a profit on it and all that. Free markets, right? A successful ViaCrypt product would probably spread around to many users who would never have gotten onboard with PGP, for instance businesses who want to be totally squeaky clean about the copyright issues. We need everyone onboard who we can get, and we *don't* need some kind of PC litmus test of "are you willing to use underground software?" -gg