L. McCarthy writes:

Jim McCoy writes:

...

Actually this "dumb flamewar" has produced some good discussion regarding actual implementation issues.

I beg to differ. If you think that was a good discussion, I'd hate to see what you'd classify as a bad discussion. Crypto relevance was minimal, too.

A bad discussion contains very little signal. The crypto relevance to the MIME discussion was quite apparent to me, it is a shame you missed it. For starters the difficulty of advancing technology conducive to CP goals when it runs counter to the inertia of "what I have now works for what I want to do today, so why bother doing something that might just be better in the long run..." Every argument that was used against MIME will one day be used to discourage the widespread use of cryptography. Additionally, MIME is a necessary standard for encapsulating cryptographic messages in a package that can get through some of the stranger transport mechanisms used on the net, it doesn't make much sense to argue over what color to paint the Ferrari when all you have is dirt roads to drive it on...

...

Everything that has happened with MIME will happen again when people try to add cryptography to the structure of the net.

It seems to me that people are *already* trying to add cryptography to the structure of the net, and that would actually be worth discussing.

Yeah, like the PGP-MIME draft, which will open up the ability to effectively use PGP to more people than anything the cypherpunks have ever done :) Standards are important and instead of trying to tilt at windmills to no purpose perhaps it is worthwhile to examine how existing standards can be effectively marshaled towards cypherpunk goals. jim