ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Narrow the scope: no new email signature protocol

2004-10-07 06:25:39


On Oct 7, 2004, at 2:49 AM, domainkeys-feedbackbase01(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com 
wrote:

S/MIME is not a common building block in any significant
email program that deals with Internet email.

Except for Outlook and Mozilla based MUAs.  That's a lot of programs.

The Internet carries 100+B messages per day. Can you elaborate (with more than hand-waving) on what proportion of that constitutes S/MIME email to non-enclave participants? My guess is vastly less than 1% - which surely constitutes a
niche player at best.

How much is being handled by DK successfully?

The fact is that there are many S/MIME and PGP libraries available and many programs that already use them and many people who have looked over both specs to help wring out the problems. If you don't believe in re-use, then perhaps we should be talking about SMTPng or DNSng or IPv8.

On Oct 6, 2004, at 11:32 AM, domainkeys-feedbackbase01(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com 
wrote:

Based on the descriptions given by James and George, it seems I could
implement an S/MIME solution with dig, reformail, and openssl using a
simple script.

Which I strongly suggest you do. I for one will need to see overwhelming
evidence that a dig/reformail/openssl combo comprehensively manages the
perimeter identification and de-encapsulation issues.

Given your statement above, I doubt this would do much to change your mind.

Hand-waving that it's a non-issue or that it works in a small, well-controlled
environment is no where near sufficient comfort factor for the
dis-enfranchising risks it presents to the email systems I manage.

Well, if you've got data or hard-core experience suggesting that S/MIME (or PGP) will not work, let's hear it. You've obviously got some deep prejudice against S/MIME. If it has a problem, I do not want to use it.

-andy


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