> It's a really bad idea to expect the installed base to change any time
> soon to adapt to a proposed standard. It's a guaranteed ticket to
> failure.
Which makes you think that lists will implement MASS... why?
If they do, that's great. If they don't, we're no worse off than we are
now. But you're still making the implausible assumption that you can
design a signature scheme that survives list mutation without also letting
through a lot of forgery, breaking existing list clients, or more likely
both.
You're making my point as to why it's imperative that MASS
survive mailing lists to the degree possible that we can.
I guess I'll have to help you guys come out of your time warp and show you
all the messy stuff that mailing lists do these days to help you
understand why surviving lists is a myth. Mailman and ezmlm run an
insignificant fraction of lists, you know.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.