RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework

"Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com> Thu, 19 June 2003 02:54 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12395 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:54:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5J2rtT08524 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:53:55 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19SpRM-00021L-Ha for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:46:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12134; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SpP4-0005Qo-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:43:58 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19SpP3-0005Ql-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:43:57 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Sozx-0000rj-WC; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:18:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Soy2-0000ia-0u for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:16:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11664 for <Asrg@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sovk-0005IH-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:13:40 -0400
Received: from black.infobro.com ([63.71.25.39] helo=infobro.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Sovj-0005Hn-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:13:39 -0400
Received: from red (unverified [207.199.136.153]) by infobro.com (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id <B0003020033@infobro.com>; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:14:22 -0400
Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:14:21 -0400
Message-ID: <01C335E6.F8082760.eric@infobro.com>
From: "Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com>
To: 'Art Pollard' <pollarda@lextek.com>, "Asrg@ietf.org" <Asrg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework
Organization: Information Brokers, Inc.
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:55:32 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Got it.  Thanks Art.

-e

On Sunday, June 15, 2003 6:56 PM, Art Pollard [SMTP:pollarda@lextek.com] wrote:
> At 11:18 PM 6/14/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >On Monday, June 09, 2003 6:21 PM, Art Pollard [SMTP:pollarda@lextek.com] 
> >wrote:
> >8<...>8
> > > ... The CR system would filter based in the digital signature rather
> > > than the FROM address.
> >
> >A signature that signs what? or do you mean a 'hash' produced using a 
> >'senders'  private key?
> 
> A digital signature uses a public / private key pair and a hash (typically 
> SHA).  Given the public key then the signature and message could be 
> verified.  The message would be signed with the private key as it went 
> out.  The message's header would contain:
> 
> 1) The digital signature (generated by the public/private key pair and the 
> message)
> 2) The public key.
> 
> The whitelisting would occur based not on the e-mail address but on the 
> public key.  Thus when a new message comes in, the public key would be 
> looked up in the whitelist to see if it is already there.  If it is there, 
> the message can be checked with the public key and the signature to ensure 
> that the proper public / private key pair actually was used to sign the 
> message and that the message has not been altered.
> 
> By whitelisting on the public key and not the e-mail address / 
> username/etc. the user can move between machines and accounts without new 
> challenges as long as they use the same public/private key pair to sign 
> their messages.
> 
> > > Thus it would be quite possible for people to have
> > > multiple clients with the same digital signature (one for each e-mail
> > > address say) and they would only have to undergo the CR once -- even if
> > > they switched ISPs.
> >
> >Same private key?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> >8<...>8
> > > ...When whitelisting occurred, it would whitelist a
> > > particular person's signature rather than their e-mail address.
> >
> >Caching of the public key?
> 
> Yep. The public key would be cached and would be used in the whitelisting 
> process.
> 
> -Art
> 
> -- 
> Art Pollard
> http://www.lextek.com/
> Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg