On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 13:18, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > > The point is that a grep of the mailbox on "^@" gives the anonymous votes file. > Then the vote is in position 15 or 16, so very unlikly to be folded. > It is obvious to remove spaces and to add xxxxnn00000 in 15th position. > where 00000 is incremented. > Then to sort by 15th position and to remove the duplicated votes. > The to check the xxxxyyyy to make sure there is no intruders. > then you sort by the 11th and you get the results. > Can be done by anyone with any tool. > > Also, if we want to get a clear ballot, we need something not too heavily > loaded with numbers. > > Ex. > Beware: please do not change the "@--#--" sequence, you would waste you vote. > > Please indicate who you vote for: > @0123jklz#12 [ ] Doug Engelbart > @0123jklz#13 [ ] Bill Gates > @0123jklz#14 [ ] Jeff Williams > @0123jklz#15 [ ] Jon Postel > > Do you agree for them to be given two cents > @0123jklz#16 [ ] Yes > @0123jklz#17 [ ] No > > Abel, Stephen and others, is there a flaw? > I propose to test the sending of the mail in sending a personal > letter to all the member to infrom them of the election. This would > be a real life test of the mail generation. jfc 1) It scales linearly. That's fine for this election, but I'd like to see a more robust solution in the future. 2) What happens if the line *is* folded? My Perl regexp is much better than my grep regexp, so I'm not sure if command line grep can handle it. What is the watchdog procedure for handling a chopped line? 3) Perhaps you should use a config file for the actual obfuscation digits and unique nr. Or generate them randomly at run-time and write out the digits to a file. That way you can release the source code without fear. 4) Are you gonna parse the mail through MIME in case you get those pesky "= 20" characters and such? I mean, obviously, if it's too weird the watchdogs will have to manually check. How hard is manually checking? 5) I'm concerned that: swaters@no.info and mwaters@no.info don't have enough entropy to make the ballot secret. I.e., let's say that since these folks are on the same mail host with a broken MTA, they both get their lines folded. Then, when the watchdog or checker looks at the votes, it could very well be: swaters@no.info: @5432pzat mwaters@no.info: @2345pzat jwaters@no.info: @1122pzat fwaters@no.info: @3311pzat Does this cause an alert for watchdogs? Will the watchdogs now have an idea of who voted how (or is that already assumed? I forget.)? Detail-oriented, -s
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part