Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
(The reason this is interesting (to me?) is that there are not so many
instances in our field where there are open design competitions at this
level. The results
On 03/23/2013 10:25 AM, ianG wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
I find that interesting too. What list would that be?
Guido.
___
cryptography
On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
Because Adium built it in?
(The reason this is interesting (to me?) is that there are not so many
instances in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/23/13 7:36 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did
not?
Because Adium built it in?
In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
On 23 March 2013 16:51, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
3. It was built into the most popular open-source IM clients (Pidgin
and Adium).
It isn't actually built in to Pidgin. Should be, IMO.
___
cryptography mailing list
On Saturday, March 23, 2013, ianG wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM systems, where OpenPGP and x.509 did not?
Because it turns out that starting with anonymous key exchange is good
enough in many cases. Leap of faith would have been
On 2013-03-24 3:25 AM, Jon Callas wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
On 23 March 2013 09:25, ianG i...@iang.org wrote:
Someone on another list asked an interesting question:
Why did OTR succeed in IM