> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:20:42 +0100 > From: Jan Danielsson <jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com> > To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > Message-ID: <56b1e28a.6080...@gmail.com> > ... > ...typically > developers want things which work and will continue to do so for 20+ > years; and archives are hugely important. Random Shiny Web2.0-company > Based Communication Platform may or may not exist in two years. Mailing > lists do not depend on a particular company existing or not. > ... > Not that I don't get that there are good things about these new > platforms, but I don't see what they offer which outweighs what I lose. > > If you want developers to move away from mailing lists, invent > something which doesn't have all the drawbacks of other technologies, > but improves on the things which are important to us. > ...
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:27:04 -0700 From: Warren Young <w...@etr-usa.com> To: Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> Message-ID: <848f7448-5131-4606-ae05-503320a66...@etr-usa.com> > ... >On Feb 2, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Martin Vahi <martin.v...@softf1.com> wrote: >> >> Whether the Telegram sticks, I think that >> probably NOT, because it is not totally anonymous, >> not even totally private, depends only on one vendor >> and that vendor applies some censorship just to >> avoid being closed down by different governments, > >Every other one of the items on that list I posted >has at least one of these weaknesses. >The single biggest one is being proprietary. >>... >I'll be the first to agree that Internet email is >far from perfect, but it remains the Internet's only >fully-decentralized non-proprietary federated >communications system. >>... > >Anything wanting to replace email will have to >cover all of those bases and then offer a significant >feature increase before it can be expected to >sweep aside 40 years of incumbency. > >More likely, email?s replacement will replace it >from within, in the same way and with >approximately the same speed as IPv6 is replacing IPv4. >>... Thank You for Your answers and comments. No promises of any kind by me here now, but what I gather from the cited statements is that I've been at a very right track with my years-in-extremely-slow-and-tedious-development http://www.silktorrent.ch (redirects to my softf1.com) Specially one of its sub-specifications that covers addressing: http://longterm.softf1.com/specifications/lightmsgp/v2/ The reason, why I send the current letter is that I hope that You will point out some obvious and highly visible flaws that I have missed but You might notice just by throwing quick glance at the specification. I do not have anything proper for encrypting big files yet, but for e-mail text I've developed https://github.com/martinvahi/mmmv_devel_tools/tree/master/src/mmmv_devel_tools/mmmv_crypt_t1 The mmmv_crypt_t1 is not final and what I've found out is that encryption algorithm should not be part of a specification, which means that a temporary hack might be using GNU Privacy Guard public key encryption key pairs as a shared secret "symmetric" key. The reason, why I do not trust any public key encryption algorithm is described at http://bitrary.softf1.com/index.php?title=Software_Development_:_Security_:_Cryptography#Why_Public_key_Cryptography_is_Fundamentally_Flawed Thank You. :-)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
