On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 08:08:17AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > On 12/06/13 00:02, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2013-06-11 23:50:01 +0200 (+0200), Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> Something that doesn't have these limitations: > >> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2487#section-7 > > [...] > > > > That basically just makes the case for relying on (E)SMTP only for > > transporting messages, but leveraging OpenPGP or S/MIME to provide > > authentication and confidentiality where required (or for anonymity, > > Mixmaster et al). > > > OpenPGP and S/MIME don't guarantee anonymity as they don't (and can't > really) encrypt the headers/envelope > > That is the type of `metadata' that allows a hostile party to start > building a social graph of who knows who. Even if they can't see the > contents of the communications, those social graphs are undesirable and > an ideal solution would prevent that. >
Can I just check - have we really gone from a (far too long, IMO) discussion on what default MTA we provide, to replacing SMTP? Just so I know if it's worth killfiling the entire thread. Neil --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
