[148218] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] Dark Mail Alliance specs?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Mercer)
Sat Nov 23 01:28:14 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <5290321C.7080907@echeque.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 22:10:43 -0800
From: David Mercer <radix42@gmail.com>
To: Cryptography Mailing List <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
--===============2320096130148953507==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c29a16ac15b104ebd1fd14
--001a11c29a16ac15b104ebd1fd14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:42 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote=
:
> On 2013-11-23 02:30, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> As far as message formats go, S/MIME has completely won the battle.
>> Virtually every mail client that supports secure mail supports S/MIME
>> and virtually everyone who uses an MUA rather than WebMail uses one that
>> has S/MIME built in.
>>
>
> But does anyone actually use S/MIME?
>
> On the trust side I think that people have been thinking about the
>> problem in a very unhelpful way. PGP's Web of trust is better for some
>> groups of people and S/MIME's CA managed trust is better for other
>> groups of people.=EF=BF=BD
>>
>
> But the number of people actually using either system is very small. Look=
s
> to me that both systems have failed.
>
Feel free to jump in if I'm off base PHB, but I'm pretty sure the message
was that S/MIME has an installed base of nearly all non-webmail clients
supporting it, while pgp/gpg are only installed by the serious geek set. So
that adding key management to a proxy that supports S/MIME means you
magically support all of that installed base who aren't using it yet, but
could.
But of course you're right about actual current usage, encrypted email is
an epic fail on that measure regardless of format/protocol.
-David Mercer
--001a11c29a16ac15b104ebd1fd14
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:42 PM, James A. Donald <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:jamesd@echeque.com" target=3D"_blank">jamesd@echeque.com</a>>=
</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On 2013-11-23 02:30, Phill=
ip Hallam-Baker wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As far as message formats go, S/MIME has completely won the battle.<br>
Virtually every mail client that supports secure mail supports S/MIME<br>
and virtually everyone who uses an MUA rather than WebMail uses one that<br=
>
has S/MIME built in.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
But does anyone actually use S/MIME?<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">
On the trust side I think that people have been thinking about the<br>
problem in a very unhelpful way. PGP's Web of trust is better for some<=
br>
groups of people and S/MIME's CA managed trust is better for other<br><=
/div>
groups of people.=EF=BF=BD<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
But the number of people actually using either system is very small. Looks =
to me that both systems have failed.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fe=
el free to jump in if I'm off base PHB, but I'm pretty sure the mes=
sage was that S/MIME has an installed base of nearly all non-webmail client=
s supporting it, while pgp/gpg are only installed by the serious geek set. =
So that adding key management to a proxy that supports S/MIME means you mag=
ically support all of that installed base who aren't using it yet, but =
could.<br>
<br>But of course you're right about actual current usage, encrypted em=
ail is an epic fail on that measure regardless of format/protocol.<br><br>-=
David Mercer<br>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>
--001a11c29a16ac15b104ebd1fd14--
--===============2320096130148953507==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
--===============2320096130148953507==--
