IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Wed, 03 September 2014 07:27 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 E307D1A0048 for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 00:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 zx4988EUQpTO for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 00:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 539EE1A001C for <endymail@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 00:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) id 1XP4xo-0002lu-0K for <endymail@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:26:44 +0200
Received: from wk by vigenere.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.82 #3 (Debian)) id 1XP4tp-0003ec-P9; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:22:37 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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>
Organisation: g10 Code GmbH
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
OpenPGP: id=1E42B367; url=finger:wk@g10code.com
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:22:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <5405EEB8.1060107@cs.tcd.ie> (Stephen Farrell's message of "Tue, 02 Sep 2014 17:22:16 +0100")
Message-ID: <87egvtjhhe.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/endymail/X4wUk0AivXkXkKMd0qbB2u9f-No
Cc: Steffen Nurpmeso <sdaoden@yandex.com>, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, endymail@ietf.org, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.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 07:27:11 -0000

On Tue,  2 Sep 2014 18:22, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie said:

> Similarly, if the list concludes that users have to understand
> keys then that's also easy - we know that will never happen
> and so could also call it a day.

Users do understand mail addresses and thus a key should be identified
by the mail address and not by any other property.

> reinvent X.400 email security here please? (Or PEM, or MOSS,

What problem do you see with MOSS?  Except for the commonly ignored
micalg parameter it is a well working part of MIME and not a problem at
all.  This is true for S?MIME as well as for PGP/MIME.  We are still
talking about mail, tight?  Or is the goal of the list to replace the
rfc822 mail format - that will never happen in the foreseeable future.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email