Why is it better to limit our innovation to the existing standards when creating the nonexistent secure messaging system? Sometimes we could improve security of a system by adding layers to it, like HTTPS and ZRTP; sometimes hacking on a legacy protocol isn't good enough and we create new things. After all, even we just add a new layer to existing standards, we are creating new standards. While resemblance to existing protocol may boost software adoption, I don't see it is wrong to design a new protocol (having it based on existing one or not) and then make it a de facto/official standard.
Edwin On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:56 AM, M. Fioretti <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 09:37:27 AM +0100, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) wrote: > > > All initiatiatives are trying to setup some new technological > > infrastructure, some new communication or encryption protocol. > > > > We MUST USE THE INTERNET STANDARDS, with modifications here and there, > > improving them, in order to reach our goal in securing asyncronous > > communications methods commonly referred as "Email". > > > > While i appreciate all of those cryptographer trying to do something > > new, i must say that THIS IS THE WRONG WAY! > > > > +100 :-) THANKS Fabio! > > Agree word by word with the whole message! > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations > of list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at > [email protected]. >
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected].
