Re: digital signature request

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 25 Feb 2004 at 12:10, Dave Aronson wrote:

> On Wed February 25 2004 11:50, gnulinux@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>  > i am very much wanting dialogue
>  > around the issue of having the list digitally signed
>  > by the list processor.
> 
> If the folks who actually run the list find themselves a spare moment to 
> breathe (not likely so soon before or after the meeting in Korea), it 
> might be fairly easy to implement.
> 
> However, what does it gain us?  Authentication that the message in 
> question, was indeed sent via the IETF list.  What does THAT gain us?  
> The ability to separate it out from the spam.  (Note also the 
> assumption that anything sent to, or at least received from, the IETF 
> list is NOT spam.  That may hold for this list, but certainly not for 
> all.)

my intention is to move in the direction of accepting 
only signed email.  this will allow me to route 
anything that doesn't include a whitelisted signature 
to /dev/null.  that's what having the list signed will 
gain me.

FYI, i made no assumption that a signed list would not 
contain spam.  in fact, i would be surprised if it did 
not.

> On the other claw, using the Sender line for that purpose has been 
> working just fine for me.  (It's forgeable, sure, but I see no sign 
> that spammers have bothered to do so, and don't think it's likely that 
> they will in the future.)  That's also trivial to set up in any decent 
> MUA.  Same holds for the List-ID, X-Been-There, and other markers used 
> by most other mailing lists.  Most cannot filter so easily (or at all) 
> on the presence/absence or [in]validity of a digsig.  Sure, advanced 
> tools such as procmail certainly can, but many of us don't even find it 
> necessary to use such things at ALL yet, and they're awfully difficult 
> for Joe Luser to set up for his mail from RANDOM-L.

if signature validation is positioned at the mail 
server level then the tools you mentioned above can 
still be used.  signature validation at the mail 
server level can add a header line to indicate 
signature validation status.  additionally, if 
signature validation is located at the mail server 
level you might also choose to route all unwhitelisted 
mail to /dev/null so you don't have to download it.

> Zero net gain, for at least some (and likely much) additional effort.  
> Why bother?

again, for me a significant gain, and i perceive that 
generating a key pair and configuring automatic 
signing of all list traffic will require a minor 
amount of effort.

david


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]