Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news.stargate
Subject: Re: how to verify an article's submitter
Message-ID: <554@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 23:40:55 EST
Article-I.D.: vortex.554
Posted: Tue Feb 12 23:40:55 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:38:20 EST
References: <462@aquila.noao.UUCP>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 20

I have assumed that some variation on a public-key system would
be useful to help assure authentication.  However, it should be
noted that the validity of these in case of litigation is 
very unclear.  In other words, I know of no court decisions that
have stated that such systems are acceptable (to the courts)
as a means of identification.  Perhaps part of the problem is the
lack of formal verification of the security of these systems
to date.

On the other hand, such encryption may not be necessary given
other authentication constraints, such as signed documents
and (possibly) assigned logins/passwords on some central submission
machine.  These are obviously only possibilities.

Of course, none of this addresses the resource allocation, content,
and perceived information value questions, which are probably at least
as important (to the overall usefulness and success of a service)
as the nitty-gritty authentication aspects under certain scenarios.

--Lauren--