On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:48:33 -0400
Kee Hinckley <nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 3:09 PM -0700 4/29/03, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:49:09 -0400 Kee Hinckley
<nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com> wrote:
So would a marker that stated the type of mail (e.g. transactional
vs. informational) be valuable?
If it were sufficiently resistant to forgery and abuse.
So it would need to be cryptographically signed, and you'd need to be
able to map the message to an accountable sender. Where by
"accountable" I mean that there is a third party to handle complaints
and somehow terminate the signature.
I'm willing to accept as a given that crypto at the centrally
signed-key/authenticated-identity level is both an unworkable and
unacceptable solution. It presumes cost structures and levels of trust
that aren't justifiable -- especially given the massive preponderance of
self-signed certs, variously rogue CAs, and general lack of real
identity validation by CAs in the wild.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg