On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > For Alice and Bob there are many possible paths: > > I very often start writing an email message on one machine and > continue on another. In the course of a typical day I use a minimum of > one PC, one Macbook, one iPhone and my work iPad. So for me it is > actually quite usual for me to start writing an email on the Mac and > continue on the PC. I typically read the messages on whichever one of > the four machines is close at hand. > > So the arity of the relationships is: > > MUA -> MTA: Many -> 1 > MTA -> MTA: 1 -> 1 > MTA -> MUA: 1-> Many > > Now a good email setup should of course have multiple MTAs. But they > should have a setup that makes them look like a single logical unit. > There are many mail servers for example.com but only one logical mail > service. > > So now we see why security policy driven by MUA published security > policy is going to fail: there is no consistency in the MUA loop. I > read mail on four separate devices. They have no way to communicate > between themselves to negotiate a common security policy and I > certainly would not want them to. > > Conclusion: > > 1) Security policy is a property of MTAs and not MUAs and hence of > domains and not accounts.
I am wading through the list trying to catch up... and something in the above makes me wonder. You start of with Alice and Bob, describe a relation between machinery, and conclude that the security policy is a property of the machinery. Why is the security policy not tied to Alice and Bob? --Olaf ________________________________________________________ Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
