Frog posted a hatefilled missive regarding QuickSilver, referring to it as snake oil. In this post is Richard Christman's rebuttal. This message has been wrapped some to correct Frog's insane, ever changing line lengths. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=200309160229.h8G2TOAG013582%40skuz.net&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&selm=H0DHTYOT37881.5861574074%40Gilgamesh-frog.org&rnum=1 http://tinyurl.com/viq6 From: QuickSilver (Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]) Subject: [ATTN] Frog-Admin (was 'Latent-Time') Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server Date: 2003-09-15 19:29:29 PST -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi Frog! I happened across your post and thought I would add a few comments. In article Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Frog-Admin) wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, An Metet wrote: > >Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Frog-Admin) wrote: > >> > >> - -Latency is a CPUNK directive > > > >Ah, then I may be doing something stupid. I use Quicksilver and > >send Mixmaster-encoded messages. Is the Latent-Time header just > >ignored under those circumstances? > > Unlike JBN2, which offers a separate graphical element > (TextBox, Combo, OptionButton) for each > *valid* parameter, (12 on main page, 18 on normal mode) > QS has just one single freetext window. I guess we all like to push the client we prefer. I see you choose to critize QS for problems when you don't even know if they still exist. I have worked very hard in recent years to improve QS. This has been based on feedback. Sometimes I'm a bit dense and don't get the picture right away. Well, anyway, JBN is not perfect. The JBN GUI is counterintuitive and a new user must read the manual over and over to begin to grasp what is required. And there is very little context sensitive help. All in all, JBN does the job well but not in a friendly way. I receive mail frequently from new QS users who tell me of their bad experiences with JBN. Very few I talk to find the program appealing. I'm sure RProcess, like myself, thought he had created the best possible interface. I'm inclined to think the best is somewhere between the 2--with a preference toward my own ideas! As for the freetext window. It is simplicity in itself. It is in fact the single biggest success of my QS design. I know this from the mail I receive. There is little required to learn and 95 out of 100 people understand immediately. They create messages, test them, and save these messages as templates. It is a simple system. Nearly everybody gets it. > QS lets you enter anything, won't control anything, and your message's > reliability may suffer. > e.g.: There has been hundreds of posts in apas about messages being > lost for missing or extra colons. The QS support in a.p.a-s is far less than it was 2 or 3 years ago. This is because I have worked very hard to improve documentation and even automatically popup dialogs explaining areas where I found there was confusion. > In short: > JBN2 won't even offer the possibility to insert a 'latency' directive > with MIX (where it is meaningless), while offering a combo with > CPUNK (where it is useful). QS won't control or propose anything. > JBN will also propose an authoritative help file on those matters. What about JBN's use of VB random functions. Microsoft clearly states those are not suitable for cryptographic purposes. This is a serious security consideration. People should know about that. What about JBN's limited range of supported protocols? Type 1 is, today, on the verge of obsolesence. JBN uses Mixmaster 2.0.4. This was good 5 years ago, but now is considered nearly as inferior as cpunk. This is a legitimate security concern. Also, I have seen JBN users come here pissed off because JBN wiped out their PGP keyrings. The worst part of that problem is that JBN forces the user to put remailer and nym keys on their main PGP keyrings. What about the future? JBN has not been updated in 5 years and there are no plans to do so. Considering what we can actually see in the near future, JBN and Reliable are on the virge of obsolesence. People want new protocols supported in their remailer client. For people that study incredibly hard to learn how to use JBN, there will be no new versions and no incorporation of new technologies. Another unwelcome dilemma when using JBN relates to the desire to upgrade other software packages and the need to retain backwards compatibility for JBN. That new windows platform they'd like may not be possible and no new PGP version, either. I can't understand why you won't update JBN, but that is your business. That is my perspective on the differences between the 2 clients. I'm sure you are not surprised that I don't see things the way you do. Generally, I don't comment on JBN, but I consider this a special case. Richard - -- R.Christman quicksilver@skuz.net http://quicksilvermail.net visit http://www.noreply.org an incredible resource of statistical information for remailer users QuickSilver Help Pages http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/qs/menu.html If you are new here, click for important info regarding frog-admin. http://quicksilver.skuz.net/BEWARE.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: N/A iQBVAwUBP2Z1fvkiDnOECmYBAQGsAgIApHyk/SgyydHVcNUt0VB+TTzBUSY2xXL3 MwDsvjuXMKIqH+E841YkoawtLbPORx+n+3Xs8EtWx7OCOHMXCcbMmA== =eBBA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----