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

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Wed, 17 July 2013 07:54 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 AF84521F9D98 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 7YAFJrNe0vZ5 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC7421F9D30 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 00:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) id 1UzMZL-0003Bn-JK for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:54:39 +0200
Received: from wk by vigenere.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.80 #3 (Debian)) id 1UzMQZ-0005Lx-TY; Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:45:35 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Ximin Luo <infinity0@gmx.com>
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>
Organisation: g10 Code GmbH
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
OpenPGP: id=1E42B367; url=finger:wk@g10code.com
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:45:35 +0200
In-Reply-To: <51E5C397.6050403@gmx.com> (Ximin Luo's message of "Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:05:11 +0100")
Message-ID: <87bo61hbog.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
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 07:54:48 -0000

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.

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.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.