[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] Mailpile SMTorP [ref: nexgen P2P email]
On 5/28/2015 7:34 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>> On 05/26/2015 09:13 PM, Mike Ingle wrote:
>>> I tried out Bitmessage and it did not seem to deliver without the
>>> sender and recipient online. It's supposed to, it just didn't.
>>> Waiting for key exchange.
>> Any response from the devs/forum when you reported the bug?
>I would have had to do a lot more troubleshooting before I went and
>complained about a bug. I was just testing it out between a couple of
>VMs to understand how it works and feels, because I am working with
>secure mail protocols and want to understand the existing ones. It
>worked fine with both of them up simultaneously.
It's hard to say anything more without details. Except that offline
within the two-day buffer is a core feature described in the white-paper
and included in the implementation since the first release.
>This is pretty similar to receiving a Usenet feed in the old days, and
>downloading all the messages so as to receive a few encrypted ones. That
>makes for the best recipient privacy, at the cost of bandwidth. From
>what I can tell, Bitmessage basically automates that process.
No, not "Bitmessage", but "the specific use-case for a feature that I
happen to understand and mentioned on this list."
> If it
>moved beyond the Darknet Markets crowd, success would kill it or at
>least require compromising the broadcast-everything rule.
I'll just ask you straight up-- are you talking about broadcast-everything
systems in general, or are you giving an assessment of Bitmessage's
implementation based on (at least) a thorough reading of the 5 page
(Confidential to cryptography list lurkers: IMO we have plenty of Ben
at this point, and could use a lot more Hal Finneys. :)
tor-talk mailing list - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to