[Endymail] Improvements to S/MIME

Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com> Fri, 12 September 2014 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <weihaw@google.com>
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 302DC1A7D83 for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 XgBmMbzGES-e for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22b.google.com (mail-qg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6B0E1A6F66 for <endymail@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a108so1098089qge.2 for <endymail@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=16zqJAAZB3W/UcMUi3fDjYsRvh8bA73TNwo+rug1B44=; b=NJ/ZMv7GsAHrnK0dziZzaNInZV7ULwo5sIG8VFNfzvs04La2aOZFmlO5mIbaP+Gbbe WLlpLhCkFU0vSArfFAHw/McC7N48sdx+6t23jRHCCu1W72P4t4RFwC2hlgnYn2fSBUvD KbET2/422Ljz/inMXWsuJui6FkaX+I2GaXYu27I1m9ztW1zdn565KEbZnPHkfMFMKj9v VXS+Xr3phkXwACtVjSCQee4YOwzbHOXQcRQkRm/JQswPiHCQrb3hW7yhjrGFbDC/CoTD OkLV33KL3rqG4Cy0RWT6MPVgJ8mh3BZYMLiS1Xpz48A89P8LncIX1IdJS19LUTh0IpM4 E+OQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=16zqJAAZB3W/UcMUi3fDjYsRvh8bA73TNwo+rug1B44=; b=cCAczGWCHLwoUJbMVS0TUfsgdulzL/X/f+L9BTZjxi79cRuemw+UAwORH/POHf6+eT NUbrbYPIFykpjmLmh392a2Au+2uab6a6USRydgYIF/O8VNLMg3yntQEaZ/AFom03zeMa nk2XkYD67yhB9dMoL1RjGRLLhyLAtmfnK+OkECRikp77VXACWE5fR8HmphZiUPw+RQKj 3gCNy6Z7rBYZe4TdnchQYfPNOJbpdMqNvsv1tfoYgc/AcwiNGpQWv6Br6CnvJmKGnMtp XQYYglGZ793M/drTEB9Y4CdDr0p91baq5c3WW5WHuXY1/YTpBlgaVl9onuUgC+j9PGtW 5QTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnyF5FzYV3YptM8o2UoJJApEctfGq7Oh0iEIzlnFdgz8KUTTvn4BYP3/srSxerUYkQJxiLr
X-Received: by 10.140.104.162 with SMTP id a31mr14883446qgf.104.1410544107124; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.116.71 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:48:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAFsWK0VtnVvKwvkC1kjK+yKORkADVW1cKDx7nQ1fxA=dpZeTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: endymail@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135568472240a0502e1e4c9"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/endymail/kZsYtpKdXrMfdYCZ9jAXzAOs3jg
Subject: [Endymail] Improvements to S/MIME
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: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:48:30 -0000

Hi all,

I would like to propse that endymail list seems like a good place to
compile future IETF work for improving S/MIME (RFC5751).  I know the S/MIME
WG has been concluded for awhile, and it would be uncertain as to when such
work could be done, but perhaps if there is enough interest, then something
could be spun up.

For quiet awhile I've been wondering about two issues with S/MIME, (and if
I'm mistaken I would love to hear the solution):
1) S/MIME doesn't fully protect users mail envelope metadata.  For example
the recipient and envelope-sender must be visible to the intermediate SMTP
MTA servers or even in the clear if the transport isn't over TLS.  Could
work be done to allow for anonymize the sender and recipient to a domain
level?
2) The sender can't really specify to the recipient a forwarding/reply
security and privacy policy.  For example the sender may wish that
subsequent derivative mails be signed/encrypted, done so with a minimum
ciphers, or perhaps even request that no forwarding be done.  Should there
be work to describe a recommended security policy to the recipients?

thanks,
-Wei