IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed Proposed Statement on e-mail encryption at the IETF

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Wed, 03 June 2015 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B7C1A3B9C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 2PfYVB6P5evB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BA071A3B9B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by laei3 with SMTP id i3so5826257lae.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 04:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GUPqGYBZO5hv4mDBBIVeezWJOxmRHzfj7gJId0+TfCA=; b=v6JYIVEyqaV8UCj6sicY5o2gerabES3ac21yvg3gzfveSYk7dS5GNTcs4A4ALnYKMM qopTHYFwKk3LyTI4xIodFWb6N8j6xFtQZkYVK88gthxgDSazC0M5OlwyZ27pPD+p7LPr Jb00ouovRpYDFMdqPGWNVfilXWMRRcxGEduS7fsXqsPsRhoGM2ND5XkGfxsFicrN5ew3 kI4K6FewDdQtymjUY4jjrkHJ2shHUnzgAHz0pjMR1ufMe+TUutKSsYmXPsRjiP8CwgfM Lr/UkriiNtwarwk8tTDt0POoY2nu4Ckw66Rlb3oT5bHpGtXgoZDd51SR4RIuM1jFAp1r /+ug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.153.7.104 with SMTP id db8mr32143219lad.124.1433331991514; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 04:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.203.163 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D419A999-27FD-40E9-B51A-95A1B12EA7D2@vpnc.org>
References: <DD88F4E4-6BBA-4610-BB49-3158A26DF55B@hopcount.ca> <2DA10E34-02DA-4245-9031-8C0F2749461D@vpnc.org> <CAMm+Lwj+WKDF7w2YpLm0AVm2qCRPnCtxzNbGy+paVh-QDSJpVA@mail.gmail.com> <D419A999-27FD-40E9-B51A-95A1B12EA7D2@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 07:46:31 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: eZc47V7okHEzrY5IRmnUn_DU--o
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwgwf5-n8d9Q7kpJWGR2m+Vd6rOJyQPU8PtnyoKxugpWfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Proposed Statement on e-mail encryption at the IETF
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134c8a033137205179b9c67"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1jyIR5SUcs9vQ6QOYyYNr79y-ns>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:46:36 -0000

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
> wrote:
> > Well I think the original point here is 'eat the dog food'
>
> We fully disagree that that was the "original point". The original point
> was that encrypted email from the IETF is good. Joe specifically requested
> that we not get into a dogfood discussion so that he doesn't fall off his
> chair.
>
> --Paul Hoffman


What he actually did was ask us not to have an S/MIME vs OpenPGP editor
war. Which is fine as neither works well enough.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email