Re: [perpass] Another mail-related proposal

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 20 August 2013 05:27 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 91EE311E8165 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:27:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, 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 FRB-PF84tc5v for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:27:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E3D11E80FD for <perpass@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:27:38 -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 1VBeTh-0006iY-Jj; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 05:27:37 +0000
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:27:36 +0900
Message-ID: <m2ppt96iev.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <5212FD71.6060200@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <520FE08B.80005@bluepopcorn.net> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1308171723400.14413@bofh.nohats.ca> <5210643F.8030709@bluepopcorn.net> <m2bo4vcuup.wl%randy@psg.com> <Pine.SGI.4.61.1308180959010.1312964@shell01.TheWorld.com> <5210F9D3.5010302@bluepopcorn.net> <m2zjsea6fd.wl%randy@psg.com> <52126423.2050209@bluepopcorn.net> <m21u5p9ox7.wl%randy@psg.com> <5212FD71.6060200@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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 05:27:39 -0000

>> smtp is hop by hop.  just because A encrypts to B, A has zero assurance
>> that B encrypts to C.  hence, e2e encryption is pretty much mandatory
>> against a purely passive attacker.
> ...which goes back to the original thing I was suggesting: that A should
> be able to signal to B that it should only relay the message (e.g., to
> C) if the channel is also encrypted and that C also will observe the
> restriction if it needs to relay the message further.

and A trusts B and B's software and configuration why?  transport
encryption by default good.  e2e encryption by default gooder.  both
great.

randy