Sujet : Re: 43 18
De : rich (at) *nospam* example.invalid (Rich)
Groupes : sci.cryptDate : 30. Mar 2025, 17:55:41
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vsbt2d$1uci3$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : tin/2.6.1-20211226 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.139 (x86_64))
Mini Mailer <
bounce.me@mini.mailer.msg> wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 30/03/2025 15:22, Mini Mailer wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 30/03/2025 10:23, Mini Mailer wrote:
7TIF7LwSWzkdecLlTj8wu84q3TTxA7D5/xcwH3HJZjkkLbMsTjUvwrM72TEF9LEHDT/P7I/WFdH=
They are different programs with different purposes, so there's not much
point in comparing them. For example, SCOS2 was designed to encrypt
*only* printable ASCII, a restriction that in the quest for
internationalisation your program completely overlooks... and that's
fine, because they are different programs with different purposes. Your
program also adds a layer of difficulty to ciphertext-only attacks,
whereas SCOS2 was designed to be easy to attack. And that too is fine;
they are different programs with different purposes.
Well, their purposes should be the same
Why?
I said: ..., posting encoded messages to Usenet.
That's not an answer to the question.
43 18
Re: 43 18