Re: [Asrg] E-mail Postmarks

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall at ehsco.com>]

On 6/8/2004 5:10 AM, William Leibzon wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Eric A. Hall wrote:

>> Back-channel ESMTP verb is my preference. It's the same level of 

> There is problem with that approach. If you let public key be
> distributed as part of the same SMTP session as email itself, it
> actually means nothing. Reason are that I can't trust your public key
> to be really for your organization just because you say so at the time

I said back-channel, not the same channel. The mail-transfer session is
one-way (client->server), and I'm suggesting that the transfer server
should open its own client connection to whichever server(s) is listed as
authorized for publishing the key data for the sender's domain.

You can do this for MAIL-FROM and From: separately.

> But I don't think we'll gain much by extending SMTP to handle such
> callback system for retreival of public keys, in such case I think its
> better to just work on new protocol since it can possibly be of use for
> protocols other then SMTP.

If you start generalizing too much you will end up in directory land and
there's already a bunch of WGs and corpses there, so that would be a
mistake in my opinion.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg