ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: towards a compromise

2004-04-21 21:45:25

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 09:17:46PM -0700, Greg Connor wrote:
| There have been objections similar to, "Oh my, but that means we don't know 
| if the receiver will check 2821 or 2822 and in general what they will do." 
| Let me say the following regarding this line of reasoning.  Yes, you want 
| to be able to predict what the receiver will do, but in most cases I think 
| we will be able to predict it and deal with it.

I hope you are right; if you are, that lets us kill two birds with one
stone.  I would certainly be in favour of that.  Crypto is a tough
challenge and let's not go there if we don't have to.

We should run a few scenarios to ensure that 2822 + LMAP can work
reasonably well and will be robust and resistant to attack.  I don't
want to make a promise I can't keep.  How might spammers might try to
defeat the algorithm?