Re: BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-12-12 Thread Bernhard Reiter
On Tuesday 05 November 2013 at 08:39:42, rw...@countermail.com wrote: > can BitMail.sf.net as a p2p email tool for encrypted Email (and hybrid with > IMAP-Email) be regarded as a reference model for research to create a > secure Email Client? as it uses both, gnupg and openssl! > > http://bitmail.s

Re: [tor-talk] [liberationtech] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-19 Thread grarpamp
> I don't think that's possible at the moment. There are no > deterministically built operating systems yet. This is rather sad. I think FreeBSD has a project somewhere trying to move that way. Hopefully all of the unix-likes are at least aware of the concept, if not having an actual project for i

Re: [tor-talk] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-18 Thread Robert J. Hansen
On 11/18/2013 1:52 AM, Johan Wevers wrote: > Dijkstra's goal of formally prooving entire programs more complicated > than hello world seems further away than ever. Don't loose any sleep > over it, noone even tried that in practice anyway. Well, yes and no. Provably-correct software is still a ver

Re: [tor-talk] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-17 Thread Johan Wevers
On 18-11-2013 6:21, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > So even if > you're running two binaries that are completely identical, the CPU may > process them quite differently depending on the state of the system. > This has some extraordinary implications for those who are trying to > guarantee their CPU is o

Re: [tor-talk] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-17 Thread Robert J. Hansen
On 11/17/2013 11:44 AM, d...@geer.org wrote: > Well said. Two binaries can be execution identical except for their > use of registers -- their use of registers being an artefact of the > compiler. In fact, it goes even deeper than that: many architectures allow their processor to dynamically reor

Re: [tor-talk] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-17 Thread dan
| ... Further, getting two | computers to generate the exact same binary code from the exact same | source code is a surprisingly difficult challenge. It requires a | perfect match of everything from compiler versions to C library | versions right down to identical *clocks* -- becau

Re: [liberationtech] [tor-talk] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-16 Thread adrelanos
I am not in contact with bitmail in any way, I wouldn't use it myself because I find the communication about bitmail very poor, namely no responses to points raised by others. Anyway, I like to comment on a few things raised here. Ulex Europae: > Robert' > should upload his binaries to Github. No

reproducible builds [was: Re: BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client]

2013-11-15 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 11/15/2013 12:06 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > getting two > computers to generate the exact same binary code from the exact same > source code is a surprisingly difficult challenge. It requires a > perfect match of everything from compiler versions to C library versions > right down to identic

Re: [tor-talk] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-15 Thread Robert J. Hansen
I'm replying because, Sourceforge? They fell out of vogue... For a service that's "out of vogue" they still host an awful lot of Free Software, and for that I think perhaps we should be a bit thankful. Their bundling is distasteful, yes, but it's hardly the end of the world given they've

Re: [tor-talk] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-15 Thread Robert J. Hansen
So... 'Robert', who do you work for? NSA? Financial crime? FBI, actually, in counterintelligence. No, wait, whoops, wrong Robert Hanssen. Sorry, I get confused about myself sometimes. All kidding aside, we don't need to cast aspersions on the motives of people who post here. It is far,

Re: [tor-talk] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-15 Thread Ulex Europae
At 09:04 PM 11/13/2013, grarpamp wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:38 AM, wrote: > Hello, > > can BitMail.sf.net as a p2p email tool for encrypted Email (and hybrid with IMAP-Email) be regarded as a reference model for research to create a secure Email Client? as it uses both, gnupg and openssl

Re: [tor-talk] BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-15 Thread grarpamp
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:38 AM, wrote: > Hello, > > can BitMail.sf.net as a p2p email tool for encrypted Email (and hybrid with > IMAP-Email) be regarded as a reference model for research to create a secure > Email Client? as it uses both, gnupg and openssl! > > http://bitmail.sourceforge.net/

Re: BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-06 Thread Robert J. Hansen
can BitMail.sf.net as a p2p email tool for encrypted Email (and hybrid with IMAP-Email) be regarded as a reference model for research to create a secure Email Client? as it uses both, gnupg and openssl! I would suggest figuring out very precisely what you intend by "secure." Once you hav

BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-05 Thread rwest
Hello, can BitMail.sf.net as a p2p email tool for encrypted Email (and hybrid with IMAP-Email) be regarded as a reference model for research to create a secure Email Client? as it uses both, gnupg and openssl! http://bitmail.sourceforge.net/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitmail/files/BitMa

BitMail.sf.net v 0.6 - Secure Encrypting Email Client

2013-11-05 Thread rwest
Hello, can BitMail.sf.net as a p2p email tool for encrypted Email (and hybrid with IMAP-Email) be regarded as a reference model for research to create a secure Email Client? as it uses both, gnupg and openssl! http://bitmail.sourceforge.net/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/bitmail/files/BitMa