1995-02-09 - Re: Cooperation

Header Data

From: storm@marlin.ssnet.com (Don Melvin)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a014e93dd8e3578aa0ce78bc758c4d8627d46c34dd30c2412ed4a93974752385
Message ID: <fbZElKJXYHRU078yn@ssnet.com>
Reply To: <9502071321.AA19736@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-09 16:06:21 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 08:06:21 PST

Raw message

From: storm@marlin.ssnet.com (Don Melvin)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 08:06:21 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <9502071321.AA19736@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
Message-ID: <fbZElKJXYHRU078yn@ssnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I would think that MIME support would be extremely important to some
of the overall goals of the remailer net, i.e. popularity and off-shore
remailers.  Now, I'm not that familiar with MIME, but I believe it
has much better support (that is, it has some) for the extended character
sets that are needed for many languages.

The remailers as the stand today, are great as long as you don't want
to send a message in Chinese, Russian, etc.

As far as RFCs, I think documenting the current remailer system then
the new version is a good idea.  The current system can be done now,
done faster, and provide a better understanding for others who can
then add to the discussion for the next version.

--
America - a country so rich and so strong we can reward the lazy 
          and punish the productive and still survive (so far)

Don Melvin                  storm@ssnet.com                finger for PGP key.





Thread