Dňa 27. apríla 2023 18:23:10 UTC používateľ John Levine via mailop
napísal:
>It appears that postfix--- via mailop said:
>>Did the German government not require a switch to ed25519?
>
>Not that I'm aware of. If they did, their mail would stop working
>since essentially nobody validates ed25519
Florian Vierke via mailop wrote on 2023-04-27 10:01:
I had the same question and the quoted sentence still doesn't explain the why
for me. The key rotation explains, that it is possible to publish the keys
without a harm for you, but I don't see a benefit for anybody in publishing the
old priv
It appears that postfix--- via mailop said:
>Did the German government not require a switch to ed25519?
Not that I'm aware of. If they did, their mail would stop working
since essentially nobody validates ed25519 signatures yet.
>And would ed25519 not be better than any RSA?
Sure, but at this
Did the German government not require a switch to ed25519? just a brain
bug that started itching when reading this otherwise mildly interesting
thread.
And would ed25519 not be better than any RSA? I mean efficiency in
calculations, transmission, storage, and by no means security /
non-repud
On Thu 27/Apr/2023 01:21:14 +0200 Matt Palmer via mailop wrote:
the Wikipedia page
for DKIM even lists "non-repudiability" under the heading "Advantages"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Advantages).
Fixed.
Best
Ale
--
___
On 27.04.2023 at 10:01 Florian Vierke wrote:
> I had the same question and the quoted sentence still doesn't explain the why
> for me. The key rotation explains, that it is possible to publish the keys
> without a harm for you, but I don't see a benefit for anybody in publishing
> the old priva
Hi John,
I had the same question and the quoted sentence still doesn't explain the why
for me. The key rotation explains, that it is possible to publish the keys
without a harm for you, but I don't see a benefit for anybody in publishing the
old private keys. If you do, I'd be interested in you
