Re: [Endymail] spam versus cleartext

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 9/7/2014 6:21 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>   Obviously doing e2e
> crypto gets you signatures.

No it doesn't.  As a matter of practice, it probably will, but the
technology does not require it.  Sigs are an entirely independent action
when doing object encryption.


> Since we are blue-skying here, I think it is
> perfectly plausible to say, "If you want to send me e2e encrypted
> messages, you also have to send me signed messages, 

So you want to eliminate anonymous communications?  Anonymity has
historical importance for some kinds of communication.


> and you don't or
> your signature is not in my contacts list already, your encrypted mail
> is going to bounce." I think it's possible that in the fullness of time,
> many users go to a contact-list model of email (a la IM) where the mail
> simply bounces unless it has a signature that is already in the contacts
> list.

The Procrustean bed always makes things simpler, and with only a few,
uhhh... shortcomings.


My point is not that signing is bad or checking against address books is
bad, but that mandating such things constrains legitimate communication
in important ways.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net