Re: Thank you all for the constructive comments

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 21:41:37 +1100, "Antony Clements"
<antony.clements@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have decided to give sci.crypt a miss for a while due to my inability to
make the jump from A-Z without knowing steps B-Y first as most people who
reply to my posts expect. For this I am called a troll. I have done plenty
of research and read plenty of things people have written from both
established cryptographers and from people who are relatively unheard of and
will continue to research and read more. I find the documents from the
obscure people easier to read because they are less mathematical in their
descriptions of various methods and modes, and go through algorithms on a
step by step basis in plain english.
Plain english if fine for an initial explanation, but for real
understanding you will need to understand the mathematics eventually.
It is often difficult on usenet to judge exactly what level of detail
a poster will understand. I tend to err on the side of less detail,
others will go the other way. Different replies will suit different
people.

I agree that discussion can get somewhat fierse here; my way is to
ignore the flames and stick to whatever substantial content there is.
Adding oil to the flames generally does not work.

I thank you Rossum for your most recent
reply to my latest post, they are always of more use to me than other
replies, and have taken what you have said abut how i was calculating the IV
into account in my redesign of the calculation of the IV.
Thanks for that. I think that I am just a short way ahead of you on
the learning curve so we are talking at about the same level of
understanding.

I have essentially
given up on coding to any particular standard method or mode, if I happen to
stumble upon one then yay for me.
I think that is a mistake. The standard methods and modes are there
for a reason. A lot of very good cryptographers have spent a long
time looking at them and trying to break them. By now they are
generally robust and their faults are known so they can be minimised
in actual implementations. By rejecting them you are rejecting a lot
of existing knowledge and comitting yourself to re-inventing the
wheel. Like science, cryptography advances by standing on the
shoulders of giants. You will be stepping off the giant and just
standing on the ground.

I had a message that was intended for
Rossum alone but the reply to address doesn't exist. So i guess i miss out
having one last word to him. See you all in a month or two.
My e-mail address is hot, not cold.

rossum

.