-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Ian Grigg wrote:
Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
[...]
2. Installed base compatibility
It has been observed a number of times that that is already lost for
other reasons, so use of MIME rather than Armour does not create a new
problem.
[...]
1. Is this WG happy to take as a given, or a working assumption, or a
fundamental position (pick your own term), that the compatibility with
the installed base is lost?
I am not happy with this assumpion/position installed base compasty is
only realy lost for a subset of users. Thouse living outside the range of
the patents or willing to bye a licence can recover backwards capasity.
That being said the loss of armour would create a new problem for the
unemcombered population.
2. If compatibility with the installed base (as inferred above) is
*not* lost, does the proposal that MIME should "replace" Armour
(ignoring how&what) still have any merit?
Advanigers for Mime
Preexisting code liberys.
Neetness of standerisation
Advanigers for Armour
Interoperbility with existing versons of PGP
Interoperbility with existing scrips.
- --
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett. I do not reply to munged addresses.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNHt0iKQK0ynCmdStAQHHgAQAtrvh79unK1zlEM9r9eHC84+FCfCcpNZQ
YkvxAhr/t6O2uqQCHTGOQ1awDAjujfXkTWhj5C6y112XA8Ne6c7qgAc4fcUo0/04
rjHhEj678eKg9DqbsTROGEu6TO6fYHX/KhLfLRZWopqJqmhZIpL+4mp1IINlskl/
K3UP8AAs5nI=
=o7Nj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----