This page was mutated from its original content to reduce and change some links that could confuse integrity.
This was an html rendering of an original raw plaintext email numbered 005381.
Secured E-mail standard?
smb at research.att.com
smb at research.att.com
Mon Jul 26 04:16:19 PDT 1993
- Previous message: Secured E-mail standard?
- Next message: DARE T-shirts
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
Has a proposal been made to officially adopt a header field in
standard Internet mail messages that would essentially include
security signature information? Something like:
X-Security-Type: PGP 1.0 X-Security-Code:
asdui&Dh1daOFajsFNOA...etc.
These generic field names would allow for various types of
security methods. Most important, would make it a lot easier
for smart e-mail systems to recognize secured e-mail, with the
option of allowing the user to filter out such fields when
reading text. The current scheme of having to "frame" the
content (plain text) and add the PGP signature is
distracting.
This won't fly for several reasons.
First, X- implies a non-standard header. Second, in the Internet world
PEM is on the standards track, and it uses a PGP-like encapsulation.
(More precisely, many facets of the PGP appearance were taken from PEM.)
PEM does provide for various security mechanisms, I should note, not
just the current RSA+DES. Finally, the scheme which you label ``distracting''
(and I agree) was adopted because there's simply too much information
to put into headers in any comprehensible fashion, and to really
do the job properly requires an encoded (and hence unreadable) plaintext
of the message, independent of the encryption or signature algorithms.
(These folks worried, and rightly so, about character sets, gateways
that would add or drop trailing blanks or tabs, etc.)
- Previous message: Secured E-mail standard?
- Next message: DARE T-shirts
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list