Re: [openpgp] signed/encrypted emails vs unsigned/unencrypted headers

Ximin Luo <infinity0@gmx.com> Wed, 17 July 2013 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <infinity0@gmx.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B7721F9DA0 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 01:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, 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 MLysz5yZoEog for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 01:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCD521F9DA5 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 01:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.193] ([109.152.229.244]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MHXXo-1V0S4m0E7Y-003Nhe for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:01:40 +0200
Message-ID: <51E64F5D.9000203@gmx.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:01:33 +0100
From: Ximin Luo <infinity0@gmx.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130518 Icedove/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <51D360B2.1070709@gmx.com> <51E4FEF0.7010004@gmx.com> <87fvvekji2.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <51E50442.8050701@gmx.com> <877ggqkemm.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <51E5C397.6050403@gmx.com> <87bo61hbog.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
In-Reply-To: <87bo61hbog.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2FXPRGWMMAIQJSJOCUIXM"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:STUdMzn6Le6N5zkdtu6eenlT1tAs3hvawGZr7goQk803EW3pARB vFZgHcovxr5BH4QmuCVAhPyzjNZoJiRO5wTNQ20SbknGpT9lV+ORWaFZXQ0Ms8dpwqaR+qA CwTbeKucfVN93k/SSYTngZqLJLN6M1mvE5EvP+cME0gnvoHL+2LOGcBlSElD4TYiQw1KM4M vcPobdmNDWModCLCqUntw==
Subject: Re: [openpgp] signed/encrypted emails vs unsigned/unencrypted headers
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/openpgp>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 08:01:45 -0000

On 17/07/13 08:45, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:05, infinity0@gmx.com said:
> 
>> Your argument about "would require decrypt" is not tight; it applies
>> equally to the message contents ("you can't search yada"). This is a
> 
> No, it does not.  Stepping users of webmail aside, most people are using
> IMAP and not POP3 or UUCP.  With IMAP you download the headers
> (including the subject) and only then select which mails to read and
> finally download.  Yes, this makes a difference if you think about
> businesses with multi-megabyte PDF documents.
> 

I don't see how this is significant - is it such a conceptual stretch to
imagine headers and the body being encrypted separately? Or do you mean that
RFC 822 does not support this?

> In any case, this is not relevant to the OpenPGP standard and thus you
> may want to move this discussion to another list.  FWIW, S/MIME has the
> very same semantics.
> 

Which mailing list, then? pgp-mime has been shut down and redirected to this
one: http://www.imc.org/ietf-pgp-mime/

X

-- 
GPG: 4096R/5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0
https://bitbucket.org/infinity0
https://launchpad.net/~infinity0