ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Rambings on RFC2822 signatures.

2004-10-03 11:18:32

Dave Crocker writes:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:25:41 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
 day. Having both From and Sender authorized give you two
 reputations to develop that judgement. That seems like a nice
 feature, not a bug, and by allowing both we get to defer
 which is *really* most interesting to actual real live
 deployments.

You make a reasonable point.  Unfortunately there is a cost 
associated with that sort of generality.  Protocols that have 
this sort of flexibility tend to be more complex, more buggy and 
slower to get adopted.

Then you tell me: who is the "originator" of a piece of mail
through a remailer? Hint: it's not a reasonable question and
is highly dependent on the context in which it is asked;
context that the senders do not have.

If MASS is to produce something quickly that is adopted quickly, 
it needs to be absolutely as simple as we can make it.  This 
means limiting options and variable as much as possible.

It adds no complexity to the sender(s); the infrastructure
required is identical. The receiver may or may not deal with
the additional complexity. Simplicity is a worthwhile goal
so long as you're not simplifying beyond that which cannot
be taken away. This is one of them, as remailers beg this
question.

         Mike


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>