On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:47:01PM -0400, Phill wrote:
(This is the last week before school goes back which is stopping me getting
to the big iron and my coding platform if folk are wondering where the code
is).
I had a discussion with some IETF types. Should I suggest a BOF in
On 2013-08-28 7:33 PM, ianG wrote:
On 28/08/13 02:44 AM, radi...@gmail.com wrote:
Zooko's triangle, pet names...we have cracked the THEORY of secure
naming, just not the big obstacle of key exchange.
Perhaps in a sense of that, I can confirm that we may have an elegant
theory but practice
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:04:34 +0200 Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that irks me, though, is the problem of the robust, secure
terminal: if everything is encrypted, how does one survive the
loss/theft/destruction of a computer or harddrive?
So, as has been discussed, I envision people
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 01:18:59 +1000 (EST) Dave Horsfall
d...@horsfall.org wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Anyway, I've already started implementing my proposed solution to
that part of the problem. There is still a need for a distributed
database to handle the lookup
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:43:24 -0400 Jerry Leichter leich...@lrw.com
wrote:
On Aug 28, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:39:51 -0400 Jerry Leichter
leich...@lrw.com wrote:
It's not as if this isn't a design we have that we know works:
DNS.
Read what I said:
Hi Phill,
On 28/08/13 21:31 PM, Phill wrote:
And for a company it is almost certain that 'secure against intercept by any
government other than the US' is an acceptable solution.
I think that was acceptable in general up until recently. But, I
believe the threat scenario has changed, and
Since forward and reverse DNS will rarely match for IP addresses used by
individuals
rather than service providers, this change precludes home users of
IPv6 from sending email to Gmail acccount.
Note that this new restriction imposed by Gmail only applies to IPv6
addresses, not
IPv4
On Aug 28, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013, Jerry Leichter wrote:
On the underlying matter of changing my public key: *Why* would I have
to change it? It's not, as today, because I've changed my ISP or employer
or some other random bit of routing
On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Faré wrote:
My target audience, like Perry's is people who simply can't cope with
anything more complex than an email address. For me secure mail has to look
feel and smell exactly the same as current mail. The only difference being
that sometime the secure
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Jerry Leichter leich...@lrw.com wrote:
On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:04 PM, Faré wrote:
My target audience, like Perry's is people who simply can't cope with
anything more complex than an email address. For me secure mail has to look
feel and smell exactly the same
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Lucky Green shamr...@cypherpunks.to wrote:
Additional guidelines for IPv6
The sending IP must have a PTR record (i.e., a reverse DNS of the sending IP)
and it should match the IP obtained via the forward DNS resolution of the
hostname specified in the PTR
Hello, I'm new here, so I apologize if I'm repeating past arguments or
asking old questions.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Jerry Leichter leich...@lrw.com wrote:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:48 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:04:22 +0100 Wendy M. Grossman
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Lucky Green shamr...@cypherpunks.to
wrote:
Additional guidelines for IPv6
The sending IP must have a PTR record (i.e., a reverse DNS of the
sending IP) and it should match the IP obtained via
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 01:30:35PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
So, as has been discussed, I envision people having small cheap
machines at home that act as their cloud, and the system prompting
them to pick a friend to share encrypted backups with.
The Least-Authority Filesystem is
Taking a break from our discussion of new privacy enhancing protocols,
I thought I'd share something I've been mumbling about in various
private groups for a while. This is almost 100% on the security side
of things, and almost 0% on the cryptography side of things. It is
long, but I promise that
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.comwrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:04:34 +0200 Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that irks me, though, is the problem of the robust, secure
terminal: if everything is encrypted, how does one survive the
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, wait. I misread the requirement. This is a pretty normal
requirement -- your reverse DNS has to be valid. So if you are
3ffe::2, and that reverses to abc.example.com, then abc.example.com
better resolve to 3ffe::2.
On Thu,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Perry E. Metzger pe...@piermont.comwrote:
Taking a break from our discussion of new privacy enhancing protocols,
I thought I'd share something I've been mumbling about in various
private groups for a while. This is almost 100% on the security side
of things,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Callme Whatiwant nejuc...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello, I'm new here, so I apologize if I'm repeating past arguments or
asking old questions.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Jerry Leichter leich...@lrw.com wrote:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 9:48 PM, Perry E. Metzger
Oh, wait. I misread the requirement. This is a pretty normal
requirement -- your reverse DNS has to be valid. So if you are
3ffe::2, and that reverses to abc.example.com, then abc.example.com
better resolve to 3ffe::2.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Communicating public keys: A functional specification
A functional specification tells us how the user uses it, what he sees,
and what it does for him. It does not tell us how we manage to do it
for him.
The problem is that you want to tell someone over the phone, or on a
napkin, or face
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 01:53:29PM -0700, Taral wrote:
Oh, wait. I misread the requirement. This is a pretty normal
requirement -- your reverse DNS has to be valid. So if you are
3ffe::2, and that reverses to abc.example.com, then abc.example.com
better resolve to 3ffe::2.
Right, so if you
Please stop using that stupid Reply All function; I'm on the list, and
will hence see your reply anyway.
I don't need my own bloody personal copy of it.
-- Dave
___
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 29, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Jerry Leichter leich...@lrw.com wrote:
- If I need to change because the private key was compromised, there's
nothing I can do about past messages; the question is what I do to minimize
the number of new messages
24 matches
Mail list logo
