On 16/10/2013 11:04, Martijn Grooten wrote:
5. Recommendations
I don't claim to be an expert on user interfaces or in human
understanding of tehnical protocols, but do you really think that an
average user can
make an informed decision on whether to use an option that requires
secure channels for email delivery, but still allows for the email to
be read at many placed along delivery route, while generating the
bounce in case one of the channels can't be adequately secured?
This is my problem. I can see it being marketed as a 'way of sending
secure email' rather than a 'way of getting more bounces than successful
deliveries'.
It isn't going to make email totally 'secure' - but it will improve it
so I can see the advantage of the idea. However, I worry that end users
will just tick the box by default (who would choose to use the 'send
insecure email' option?) and then the people who manage the servers will
be deluged with problem reports about emails not being delivered.
At what level of 'secrecy' would you expect this to be used? For 'really
top secret messages', you'd be daft to use this, as it's not totally
secure. For 'my holiday photo messages' you'd be daft to use it, as
they're not secret, and you'd really rather the message got through than
caring that some CIA agent got to waste time looking at your picture of
a mountain.
-
Paul Smith Computer Services
Tel: 01484 855800
Vat No: GB 685 6987 53
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp