IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at ietf@ietf.org)

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Tue, 23 September 2014 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 50AE51A02A0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 BE9oCFSH1mcw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 767671A1AC6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 5AC062AB0A8; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:27:39 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:27:39 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: email standards (was: Re: facilitators at ietf@ietf.org)
Message-ID: <20140923212739.GV13254@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <E6D4B18F-9533-4EE1-A794-526094893D3C@ietf.org> <CAMm+LwjxOiFsWcCZoGcaqaF3fv6XBOK8LhQdzWJsigYvQQ4-kg@mail.gmail.com> <A94EB0C46B51C2E2AD3A3BAA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <1454468.3R9eHDD3Io@scott-latitude-e6320>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1454468.3R9eHDD3Io@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NvmZXc-jdGupLaU9HTZGZwk3Dig
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:27:42 -0000

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 05:17:49PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I use both OpenPGP and S/MIME on a regular basis and in no case where I use 
> one would the other be suitable primarily because of the differences in trust 
> models you describe.  While they both sign/encrypt email their use cases are 
> disjoint in my experience.

Apple's Mail.app on desktops allows an S/MIME key to bound via
Keychain to a particular correspondent, without placing any trust
in whatever CA may have issued the certificate.  This makes S/MIME
usable with a TOFU trust-model.

So for me the sweet-spot has been S/MIME with direct (leap of faith)
trust.  I am disappointed when I can't use TOFU with S/MIME in some
other MUAs.

-- 
	Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email