[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Armour

1997-11-21 16:15:27
At 02:19 PM 11/21/97 -0800, Jeremey Barrett wrote:
I thought we were discussing PGP, not email. Last time I checked noone

Responses like this are coming from a number of people.  They are, frankly,
beginning to look like willful and selective listening.  In other words,
they are highly counterproductive.

I made the email comment in response to the clear misunderstanding about
the status of email and the status of MIME usage within email.  I.e., about
the status of MIME.  The focus was not email, it was MIME.


This point is being ignored.  We need, instead, to pay attention to it.

Let me try it yet again:

     The Internet standard way of packaging, labeling and adding transport
protection is MIME.

     It is not a political correctnet issue about the "official" choice.
It is a 
     matter of what is actually being USED.  The fact that it is not
"universal" is 
     because it is new enough to be still going through adoption, i.e.,
growing in 
     use.  The growth is going just fine, thank you very much.

     If this group insists on trying to standardize a separate mechanism
for doing the 
     same things as MIME, it will be declaring itself as separate from the
general Internet
     technical community and it will be adding entirely unnecessary
redundancy and 
     complexity to its specification and to the resulting products.

     One would think that those interested in promoting the commercial
success of PGP
     would want to be careful to avoid taking any step which would
(further) marginalize
     it from the commercial sector.

Dave Crocker                                          
Internet Mail Consortium                               +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr.                                    fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA              info(_at_)imc(_dot_)org ,

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>