[liberationtech] Asyncronous secure messaging (Email): Why reinvent the wheel?

[Edwin Chu]

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 <mfioretti at nexaima.net> 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
> companys at stanford.edu.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20131109/857b42c3/attachment.html>