begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:59:44PM -0700: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:52:58PM -0700, SJS spake thusly: > > Part of the problem is that we're using a SIMPLE mail transport protocol. > > I still like PKI and reputation systems. If you get an email address your > ISP/company/sysadmin or whatever signs your key. I'm sure this could be > made standard and easy to use if Microsoft had any interest in doing so. > But they don't. I know you object to this method. But I would still like > to see a standard implemented and made the default by someone like MS in > Outlook.
I object? Since when? I mean, yes, I object to letting MS take the lead in anything, or to standardizing on Outlook. I would be interested in learning what my objections to PKI are. Let's see... 1. Any presumption of anonymity is lost. 2. Unique email addresses become very painful to use. 3. Current PKI/reputation systems are (needlessly?) complex. 4. Too many CAs are trusted by default on little to no assurance/evidence. 5. Doesn't solve the problem of a compromised machine. -- Does that at all match my previous objections? Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
