Re: LYNX-DEV dodging the gun

[nospam-seesignature]

On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Gregory S. Stark wrote:

> In the case of SSL there's no need to do anything so elaborate. Programmers
> outside the US are equally capable of writing crypto code. In fact an
> implementation already exists that was programmed entirely in Australia. It
> would be quite easy to base a LynxSSL on this freely distributable
> implementation. Commercial SSL products are available outside the US already
> and have been given quite a boost by not having to compete with American
> products.

The Austrailian SSL is called SSLeay, and I have used it (can be compiled
with RSAref for personal use) to create an SSL proxy server (pointers are
on some of the lynx pages, or at www.cryptography.org in the SSL
directory), so that all you have to do is run the proxy (in the
background), and set two environment variables, and you have full strength
encrypted lynx without doing anything to lynx.  No one outside the US has
attempted to duplicate what I have done.  That may change with Netscape
being published.  I haven't checked Lynx 2.8 out yet with it, but unless
something drastic happened it should be completely decoupled.

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---