[Standards] Discussion venue Re: e2e privacy for XMPP Re: RFC 3923 (e2e with S/MIME) and OpenPGP

Carlo v. Loesch CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Wed Nov 20 13:27:59 UTC 2013


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:04:25PM +0000, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Carlo v. Loesch <CvL at mail.symlynx.com>wrote:
> 
> > If you don't accept social graph protection as a more important
> > priority than interoperability,
> 
> "Interoperability" is a posh word for "works".

So you mean Tor is interoperable, although just with itself?
Probably true.

The discussion arose because Mr Kuckartz insists on thinking
that graph-protecting communication systems MUST be XMPP
compatible just because it's there, whereas I think it would
(1) not motivate XMPP users to upgrade to a higher degree of
privacy and at the same time (2) give the new users a false
sense of security when the XMPP gateway is actually leaking
their social graph, thus not fulfilling the promise it gave.

I think I agree with you. I think graph-protecting software
like Pond is very well interoperable with itself.  :)





More information about the Standards mailing list