I have written a while back the SSL Certificate HOWTO, and while I was doing it
I found out, that's it is near impossible to get a signing certificate. I mean
a certificate that allows you to sign the certificates you produce.
GPG was a bit better because it does not require an authority (would I dare to
say a licenser).
We have the same issue with IPSec. Great spec, very secure, totally unusable.
IETF is not well know to make good user interfaces...
Franck Martin
http://www.avonsys.com/
http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys
twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys
Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai Engert" <kaie(_at_)kuix(_dot_)de>
To: "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" <asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010 9:14:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam Salt, an email sender authentication mechanism
On 28.09.2010 20:14, mathew wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:36, Kai Engert<kaie(_at_)kuix(_dot_)de> wrote:
Wouldn't it help to introduce an universal mechanism that makes forgery
difficult, in order to make sender addresses in emails more reliable?
We already have S/MIME, which almost every common e-mail client supports (1).
Yes, I'm aware, I've been contributing to make S/MIME available in
Mozilla Mail and Thunderbird since 2001.
http://tinyurl.com/3ac258p
Nobody (2) uses it. Hence I suspect that validating sender identity is
less valuable to people than you think.
I don't agree with this conclusion.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg