IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Web Key Directory I-D -07

Bart Butler <bartbutler@protonmail.com> Thu, 15 November 2018 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <bartbutler@protonmail.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 584DE130DE4 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 12:46:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
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 0boA1_t44t4C for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 12:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7902C130DD8 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 12:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:45:50 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1542314755; bh=zTCh6d77Jum1EgXHnzVHmncHus7MYtHlVCDmyoQen6o=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=SG9OM1punD9MQIt9L808/C9MNjh0O1vMnBuz0UlHaYMPAdQr/+gI2QhJwGGuJUWGt 8H2G4tk7zFmCXR3b3O0kAkeXIJ91PPpOHVHsQlfn6PLUVYIrm7nvoMVruddSClu7Ce BvMerWU3r/Mb7PMBeGIGNgvSd5ND1Mi0Mu0yBpNU=
To: azul <azul@riseup.net>
From: Bart Butler <bartbutler@protonmail.com>
Cc: "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
Reply-To: Bart Butler <bartbutler@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <EydI4qLbkY14UntzaCzaJn0FeoM0k74FOuTFkamHRUD2_47VxGVtesL70NCatnPxrr0Bmqh7_B1alJE3ymMorw==@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0a788c9c-cd3f-76df-4f65-754b0e08eb24@riseup.net>
References: <878t1xoz37.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <9J2v287mmh9FWFLrXjxZGnVjA8HNCHpPc2wyEDDqhGeKAhE7grR6JKFMRoHJfKSq9qcjDGRNfoJ5sEODERtP0Q==@protonmail.com> <875zx0n0j9.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <lVvFGxVUkBNCpL2ek6IOg0IR5V0Y94sscgd72rcoZ_obkE-9WZ6L-wz9BXlxclZ8dXoc9dCMLndA8-LVMG5vcA==@protonmail.com> <87sh04km1x.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <0a788c9c-cd3f-76df-4f65-754b0e08eb24@riseup.net>
Feedback-ID: XShtE-_o2KLy9dSshc6ANALRnvTQ9U24aqXW2ympbGschdpHbU6GYCTUCtfmGhY9HmOyP1Uweyandwh1AVDFrQ==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; boundary="---------------------7b86c40b8f1f55e79518daf7040f0012"; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/SWM43Xs98WOZAXlb_zOUBYkmiVk>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Web Key Directory I-D -07
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:46:07 -0000

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 1:13 AM, azul <azul@riseup.net> wrote:

> One downside I see is that the mechanism could be used to detect where
> an email address routes to. In the case of azul+conf this may be easy to
> guess. But for aliases users do not expect them to be linkable without
> any interaction on their side.

If they use a shared key for this purpose they are theoretically linkable via fingerprint anyway. In the case of things like catch-all addresses, I think this can be left up to the MTA to implement how they see fit. I think in most cases for catch-all the destination address is not sensitive.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email