>the denial using Glomar exception is here:

 https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2019/02/11/1-29-19_MR67282_REJ-G_106095.pdf

This document doesn't say why the Glomar exception is applicable.   It does not even include the term "Glomar".  Frustratingly, in this PDF format I cannot select and copy text.  Why???

How would the (re-)disclosure of these Cypherpunks emails, which were originally disseminated to thousands of people, including (presumably) foreigners, result in "identifiable or describable exceptionally grave damage to the national security"?   The simple answer is, 'No way in hell!!!'.   That response was deliberately wrong.  

This is still true.   A re-filing might be better done in another person's name, to ensure that the concepts of "collateral estoppel" and "res judicata" aren't used to reject the claim a second time.

Given that recent case out of the Northern District of California, it seems likely that a better tactic would be to have somebody else file essentially the same FOIA application in the Northern District of California, citing that precedent, and then have the right to appeal the agency's denial(s) to that California district.  However, I see no reason that both tactics could not be pursued, in parallel.   Except, that the last time I heard of what it was, a District Court docket fee was $350, but it might have changed.  Getting a waiver of the docket fee ("In Forma Pauperis") might be possible, but it might merely be in a form which delays the payment, not completely waives it.  

It would also be useful to pre-load the FOIA requests with arguments as to why things like the Glomar exception shouldn't apply:  The Cypherpunks mailing list was never "secret"; it was always open to anyone who wanted to subscribe to it; everyone who posted to it knew that their postings would be sent to hundreds (eventually thousands) of subscribers.  In principle, any person who wanted a copy of the entire (or a portion) of the Cypherpunks email database could have 'easily' achieved that by simply subscribing to it:  It certainly isn't clear why the collection of Cypherpunks emails, all of which were public and moreover were fully intended to be public,  would be a 'matter of national security'.   Make them WORK for the exceptions!    And, if re-filed in the Northern District of California, cite that as relevant precedent.