IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and what the IETF could do

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 03 September 2014 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: endymail@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: endymail@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CE51A02D4 for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 03:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fq4Dzth1wvq6 for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 03:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE411A02BC for <endymail@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 03:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FAFABE10; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:53:38 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id amLLJmjtUYqI; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:53:37 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7FE9BE0F; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:53:37 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <5406F333.4040006@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:53:39 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
References: <CAHBU6iuxfqs9RszSaJLaTV_obKBCJ9Pzii+t9XANN3q+bJm-3Q@mail.gmail.com> <878um3prio.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <cddbc815-a98a-48e5-8dea-c3d8a68ca4d9@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <87y4u2laqh.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <20140902114217.lp_a_yD8%sdaoden@yandex.com> <20140902160206.GA7900@vegoda.org> <5405EEB8.1060107@cs.tcd.ie> <87egvtjhhe.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
In-Reply-To: <87egvtjhhe.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/endymail/HQYDGuNaq--LBema9iT1JgMrefE
Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org>, endymail@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Endymail] Another view of the problem and what the IETF could do
X-BeenThere: endymail@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <endymail.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/endymail>, <mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/endymail/>
List-Post: <mailto:endymail@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/endymail>, <mailto:endymail-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:53:42 -0000


On 03/09/14 08:22, Werner Koch wrote:
>> > reinvent X.400 email security here please? (Or PEM, or MOSS,
> What problem do you see with MOSS? 

Its irrelevance:-) Is it actually used for anything?

I note the RFC [1] is now historic and as far as I know
its not in use. I'm not saying its technically good
or bad, (more good than bad is my recollection but I've
not re-read it) but it failed in terms of adoption.

S.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1848

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email