[735] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Full Strength Stronghold 2.0 Released Worldwide
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Shostack)
Wed May 7 19:07:04 1997
From: Adam Shostack <adam@homeport.org>
In-Reply-To: <3370B8E2.794B@netscape.com> from Tom Weinstein at "May 7, 97 10:16:18 am"
To: tomw@netscape.com (Tom Weinstein)
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 13:46:17 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: cryptography@c2.net (Cryptography Mail list)
Have you replaced SMTP with something that offers reliability as a
feature?
By reliability, I mean traditional transactional atomicity with an
action followed by a commit/undo agreement. If saying 'mail is lost'
is not acceptable, than before rolling out KR, you need to roll out a
base level of transport and software that can meet your reliability
needs. God knows sendmail doesn't cut it.
Adam
Tom Weinstein wrote:
| Matt Blaze wrote:
| >> when the key is lost. It may not be acceptable to just discard
| >> those messages, or ask them to be resent.
| >
| > Isn't that what certificates and a key distribution system are for?
|
| What? If you send encrypted mail to me but I lose my key before the
| mail arrives, how do I read the message? I can either get you to send
| the message again using a new key (which may not be possible), or have
| my key recovered. It may be acceptable in some cases to say that the
| mail is lost. It is certainly not acceptable in all cases.
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume
