RE: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification
"Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <jimsch@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com> Tue, 18 May 1999 22:37 UTC
Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17006 for <smime-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 1999 18:37:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id OAA22532 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 18 May 1999 14:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from doggate.exchange.microsoft.com (doggate.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.88.55]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA22528 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 18 May 1999 14:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by doggate.exchange.microsoft.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <K5PL53PC>; Tue, 18 May 1999 14:42:12 -0700
Message-ID: <2FBF98FC7852CF11912A0000000000010ECB5F7D@DINO>
From: "Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <jimsch@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com>
To: "'bjueneman@novell.com'" <bjueneman@novell.com>
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
Subject: RE: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:41:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Finally, somewhere in these documents there is a statement regarding the advisability of including the content encryption key encrypted in the originator's public key, but despite rereading the documents multiple times I can't find that text again. As I recall, the text said that this SHOULD be done. I would argue that this should be changed to MUST, for I can't imagine a situation where the originator of an encrypted message would not want to be able to read his own message, for example in an outgoing or Sent-Mail queue. He might need to be able to decrypted, and even retract it in order to resend it with modifications. It would not be reasonable to rely on the originator to bcc herself to gain this capability -- it ought to be required by the spec. [Jim Schaad] This was a requested functionality by a group of people and is there for a reason. One situation in which this would be the case is human rights workers sending encrypted mail to the home office. They do not want the local police to be able to read the mail by stealing the machine and key or by force. jim schaad
- Re: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Peter Gutmann
- RE: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification William Whyte
- Re: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Peter Gutmann
- RE: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Jim Schaad (Exchange)
- RE: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Bob Jueneman
- Re: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Bob Jueneman
- RE: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Andrew Ferguson
- Re: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Enzo Michelangeli
- RE: Re: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification bartley.o'malley
- RE: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Peter Gutmann
- Export Restrictions (was Re: Issues with S/MIME M… C. Harald Koch
- RE: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Russ Housley
- Re: Issues with S/MIME Message Specification Russ Housley