Return of the death of cypherpunks.

James A. Donald jamesd at
Fri Oct 28 12:09:36 PDT 2005

From:           	Eugen Leitl <eugen at>
> While I don't exactly know why the list died, I 
> suspect it was the fact that most list nodes offered a 
> feed full of spam, dropped dead quite frequently, and 
> also overusing that "needs killing" thing (okay, it 
> was funny for a while).
> The list needs not to stay dead, with some finite 
> effort on our part (all of us) we can well resurrect 
> it. If there's a real content there's even no need 
> from all those forwards, to just fake a heartbeat.

Since cryptography these days is routine and 
uncontroversial, there is no longer any strong reason 
for the cypherpunks list to continue to exist.

I recently read up on the Kerberos protocol, and 
thought, "how primitive".  Back in the bad old days, we 
did everything wrong, because we did not know any 
better.  And of course, https sucks mightily because the 
threat model is both inappropriate to the real threats, 
and fails to correspond to the users mental model, or to 
routine practices on a wide variety of sites, hence 
users glibly click through all warning dialogs, most of 
which are mere noise anyway.

These problems, however, are no explicitly political, 
and tend to be addressed on lists that are not 
explicitly political, leaving cypherpunks with little of 

         James A. Donald

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list