Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: Re: Four key public cryptography?
Message-ID: <12900003@ccvaxa>
Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 23:03:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.12900003
Posted: Wed Feb  5 23:03:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 21:00:48 EST
References: <12900001@ccvaxa>
Lines: 12
Nf-ID: #R:ccvaxa:12900001:ccvaxa:12900003:000:558
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Feb  5 22:03:00 1986


Thanks for reassuring me that I'm not totally at sea about this. 
If I was a victim of the mixup of security and authenticity 
about this, I'm certainly not the only one, as evidenced
by the correspondence I received.

Have you any references to where the proper distinction
between authenticity and secrecy is made? I would have asked
you by mail, except your return path did not get to me.
Is there any possibility of truth to my suspicion that the
less severe constraints on the "authenticity" transformations
might make it easier to find reliable ones?