Re: [lamps] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-e2e-mail-guidance-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I agree that we don't have as much participation in the IETF from a few
    > of the big MUA implementations as i would like; but in part that may be
    > because we've never taken on work that feels relevant to them.

+1

    > Hopefully publishing this guidance will help bring more attention to
    > the gaps in the ecosystem, and if other MUA implementers have
    > additional suggestions, or want to explore some of the territory mapped
    > out in the "Future Work" appendix, or even want to complain about the
    > guidance we've published, they'll see the IETF as a place to advance
    > some of that work in an interoperable, usable, and secure fashion.

I think that this is a useful result.

...

    > Seems to me we have two choices: (a) abandon the idea of using e-mail
    > in an end-to-end cryptographically secure manner on a 'net that is
    > increasingly subject to surveillance, fraud, and attack, or (b) chart a
    > path forward with some reasonable defenses for a widely-deployed,
    > interoperable, federated messaging system.

I agree.

    > If i could be convinced that e-mail will die off completely and be
    > replaced by something with comparable reach that isn't beholden to a
    > single operator, i'd be pretty happy with (a).  Maybe the MIMI work
    > will get us there!  But until that happens, as a prominent custodian of
    > the e-mail ecosystem, i think the IETF needs to work on (b) as well.

I saw a stat on the number of emails sent every day, and I was rather
impressed at how many zeros were involved.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*