RE: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists

Graeme Lunt <Graeme.Lunt@nexor.co.uk> Mon, 28 July 2003 17:31 UTC

Reply-To: "g.lunt" <Graeme.Lunt@nexor.co.uk>
From: Graeme Lunt <Graeme.Lunt@nexor.co.uk>
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: 'ietf-smime' <ietf-smime@imc.org>
Subject: RE: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:05:28 +0100
Organization: Nexor
Message-ID: <009001c3552a$723d8e50$d2353fc1@nexor.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030722224635.0414f4d8@mail.binhost.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russ,
 
> When we designed the MLA mechanism, we assumed that each mail 
> list would have a separate key pair and certificate.  I do not 
> think that this is an unreasonable assumption.  Today, Web servers 
> that support more than one site have a certificate for each of the 
> sites.

I had reached this conclusion on further reading of 2634. Whilst being
able to use a single certificate (and ACs for example) for hundreds of
lists would be useful, it is not a major concern at the moment. 

My main issue was to have a mechanism to indicate on whose behalf of
whom a signed receipt was generated (e.g. in the case of an "All"
request from  a ML). 
Either a specific field in the Receipt structure, or just an extension
mechanism (which may be more generally useful).

Graeme

Signed Receipts and Mail Lists Graeme Lunt
Re: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists Sean P. Turner
RE: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists Graeme Lunt
RE: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists Jim Schaad
RE: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists Graeme Lunt
RE: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists Russ Housley
RE: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists Graeme Lunt
RE: Signed Receipts and Mail Lists Russ Housley