Re: [apps-discuss] [websec] [saag] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Sun, 19 December 2010 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67EF43A6911; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:02:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.985
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.599, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS=1.213]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X8qCV2TyjfYu; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A327C3A6910; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1PURMA-000Jc4-IS; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:03:54 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4FA360C7; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:03:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18timQ4um115qKSoyKjKv9Us5qWv7NZVf4=
Message-ID: <4D0E8148.7060607@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:03:52 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
References: <4D02AF81.6000907@stpeter.im> <p06240809c928635499e8@10.20.30.150> <ADDEC353-8DE6-408C-BC75-A50B795E2F6C@checkpoint.com> <78BD0B98-0F20-478B-85F1-DBB45691EB0D@padl.com> <4D0479E3.4050508@gmail.com> <4D04D7D6.4090105@isode.com> <A23730A9-728B-4533-96D7-0B62496CC98A@checkpoint.com> <4D051731.1020400@isode.com> <4D054041.7010203@cisco.com> <0435D11C-DF55-464D-B23F-F5D114DEE2C3@checkpoint.com> <2229.1292235952.971571@puncture> <4D05FB8F.3070804@qbik.com> <2229.1292239384.281779@puncture> <96517E19-5DC7-47A0-8C21-C710F6F8F772@tzi.org> <2229.1292253372.639419@puncture> <AANLkTi=iGWnBtOgPhN9tRtaJTxQhvRkjq3p0UCkRdT8=@mail.gmail.com> <4D0DE882.50201@qbik.com> <AANLkTi=oscrJbRM2coa1+bZFB6W8t5vKcmEMGpDPvrf9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=oscrJbRM2coa1+bZFB6W8t5vKcmEMGpDPvrf9@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:33:23 -0800
Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, websec <websec@ietf.org>, Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten@ietf.org>, "http-auth@ietf.org" <http-auth@ietf.org>, "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [websec] [saag] [kitten] HTTP authentication: the next generation
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:02:03 -0000

On 12/19/2010 03:49 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> On 19 December 2010 11:12, Adrien de Croy<adrien@qbik.com>  wrote:
>> Imagine if
>> everyone needed a client certificate to send any mail.  We'd have no spam.
>
> Nonsense. We'd just restrict spam to owned machines, of which there
> are only a few tens or hundreds of milliions, if we're lucky.

Nonsense. We'd have no mail. Or rather some other store-and-forward 
messaging system would arise and not be called mail.

Look back far enough and you'll find all kinds of "electronic mail" 
services implementing the full range of peer and end user 
authentication, and sender-pays models. There was no spam on those 
systems, or at least not enough that anyone felt like they needed a word 
for it.

Guess why we use the one we use today.

- Marsh