IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Tue, 02 September 2014 07:56 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 52DD51A00B7 for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 aHyAr-HgH5g3 for <endymail@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:56:46 -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 53FF81A00D9 for <endymail@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) id 1XOixI-0003Gi-Ig for <endymail@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:56:44 +0200
Received: from wk by vigenere.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.82 #3 (Debian)) id 1XOitq-0007ZI-NS; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:53:10 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
References: <CAHBU6iuxfqs9RszSaJLaTV_obKBCJ9Pzii+t9XANN3q+bJm-3Q@mail.gmail.com> <878um3prio.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <cddbc815-a98a-48e5-8dea-c3d8a68ca4d9@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:53:10 +0200
In-Reply-To: <cddbc815-a98a-48e5-8dea-c3d8a68ca4d9@gulbrandsen.priv.no> (Arnt Gulbrandsen's message of "Mon, 1 Sep 2014 12:48:45 +0200")
Message-ID: <87y4u2laqh.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/l76WEooex7_wKn-82rJ-CAJ2ynY
Cc: 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: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 07:56:48 -0000

On Mon,  1 Sep 2014 12:48, arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no said:
> The web of trust hasn't failed?

The WoT is only a part of OpenPGP and actually never specified.

Sure, mass-acceptance of encrypted mail failed but not due to the WoT.
If you ask OpenPGP users you will notice that most of them entirely
ignore the key validity issue and at best use local signature to mark
keys valid.  Does this help?  No, people still complain that encryption
looks too complicated and they turn over to the next hottest
surveillance service claiming that there they have nothing to hide
anyway.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email