Doug Royer <Doug(_at_)Royer(_dot_)com> wrote:
If you get a signed message where the cert is signed by a trusted CA, then
it is not fraudulent.
<sigh> You are being obtuse. The cert is valid, the underlying identity the
cert is alleging may very well be fraudulent.
Then you have failed to make your point as it can't be fraudulent if the
cert is valid from a trusted CA.
No... you have failed to understand my pouint. That's different.
New flash: There are several 'royer.whatever' sites around the
world. In case this has confused you - we are not related in any way
with each other. The same is true of MANY commercial establishments
in your telephone phone book. Do you think that they are all
related if they have similar names? Did you think that they can not
commit fraud just because they are in the phone book with a similar
name to your favorite stores?
It's easier to tell them apart in the physical world. On-line,
there are fewer clues to tell them apart.
Are you really that dense?
Did you think they were? If not - what is your point? If it is that
there is no way to do content fraud detection then you are right
and it still has nothing to do with S/MIME.
Did I ever say it did? You're the one getting all hot and bothered
over certificates. I have no clue why, as my original point had
little to do with certificates.
So you're either misunderstanding me, or trying to hijack the
conversation. Either way, you're arguing against a position I've
never taken, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time trying to explain
myself to you.
Your missing the point. We are NOT talking about site certs.
I know what I'm talking about. I have no clue what you're talking
about, or why you think your conversation has anything to do with the
issues I raised.
Bye.
Alan Dekok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg