IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: not really pgp signing in van

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Mon, 09 September 2013 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD3121F9F84 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iWphrj42+xSW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3128B21F9F31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5C320E40CD; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1378764548; bh=Dlt7lVX931lkmnBGsGFLmC6I8tuZY8KwgLGtx49ecJc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=UTH3wo6/Tnsx1YiUR2UFDwTYCWEBBCAmGQInYD/i3mqNXOeGH0Cud/gOdhu2+++3w t0VUYOriFHnFOZd6AZ9lwUnJZ1ecuwsgwoHaSkO3fbfG2GBh8amwM1CbowxaYpoYsn N312L8bSQ3yOnckNqfD1PWAzbNxWibjBf06zu44k=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA46920E407C; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: not really pgp signing in van
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:09:07 -0400
Message-ID: <1604134.0PAONl8GoT@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.8.0-30-generic; KDE/4.10.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20130909213615.33324.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <20130909213615.33324.qmail@joyce.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 22:09:15 -0000

On Monday, September 09, 2013 21:36:15 John Levine wrote:
> >> Yes, they should have made that impossible.
> >
> >Oh my, I _love_ this!   This is actually the first non-covert use case I've
> >heard described, although I'm not convinced that PGP could actually do
> >this without message format tweaks.
> Sounds like we're on our way to reinventing S/MIME.  Other than the
> key signing and distribution (which I agree is a major can of worms)
> it works remarkably well.

Which sounds kind of like, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email