Re: [perpass] Another mail-related proposal

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sun, 18 August 2013 07:37 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C7611E825E for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 00:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, 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 4gXfzI0JF5Mm for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 00:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C786811E81C3 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 00:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1VAxYd-0002K3-93; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 07:37:51 +0000
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 16:37:50 +0900
Message-ID: <m2bo4vcuup.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <5210643F.8030709@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <520FE08B.80005@bluepopcorn.net> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1308171723400.14413@bofh.nohats.ca> <5210643F.8030709@bluepopcorn.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: perpass@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [perpass] Another mail-related proposal
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for discussion of the privacy properties of IETF protocols and concrete ways in which those could be improved. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 07:37:57 -0000

> I'm having more trouble coming up with use cases where I'd want to
> reject messages that don't use PGP or S/MIME.

visualize a future world where e2e message privacy is the default.  in
that world, some parties could view an unencrypted message as an attack.

> The originator of a message is in a better position to decide whether
> it contains sensitive information. And as the receiver you can't
> generally protect against the message traversing the network in the
> clear -- SMTP is often more than one hop and an earlier hop (or
> submission) could have been in the clear, even if you did require TLS
> for the last hop.

i do what is in my power to do.  just because there might be a weakness
in the system n hops away does not mean i should indulge in weakness.

randy