[148265] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] Email is securable within a coterie [was: Email
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ianG)
Tue Nov 26 11:34:42 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:23:57 +0300
From: ianG <iang@iang.org>
To: StealthMonger <StealthMonger@nym.mixmin.net>,
Cryptography <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131125100717.C1070EAB26@snorky.mixmin.net>
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
On 25/11/13 13:07 PM, StealthMonger wrote:
> ianG <iang@iang.org> writes:
>
>> But, there are other reasons...
>
>> For example, consider traffic analysis or metadata or mass surveillance...
>
>> Then, look at the design of email...
>
>> Then, webmail...
>
>> Then, the assumptions of email...
>
>> Hence, I've concluded that email is unsecurable.
>
> None of these objections apply to mail within a coterie (as most email
> is) where the parties agree out of band to suppress non-essential
> headers and to properly use anonymizing remailers and message pools.
I entirely agree that if you put all that in place, it will work. Mail
is theoretically securable.
What I would question is whether we can agree on how to get to that
place (IETF committees, PHB v. Dark Alliance, S/MIME v. PGP, etc etc),
and whether it is cost-effective, given alternatives. E.g., Coteries in
Skype or OTR/Jabber, etc.
iang
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
