Re: rough sketch of a potential solution

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:56:08 +0000 "Adam M. Costello" 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm not very familiar with S/MIME, but I scanned RFC 3280
> (regarding the use of X.509 certificates on the Internet) and it looks
> like a certificate can contain multiple email addresses bound to a
> single public key.  That would seem to be exactly what we need.  The MUA
> could take the intersection of {the From address and its alternates} and
> {the addresses in the certificate}, and from the intersection choose
> the address best suited to the user's locale, and display that as the
> author&signer.  This would avoid the need for a separate signature on
> the alternate-addresses header field.

Yes, this is correct and is definitely the right thing to do in the 
presence of multiple equivalent addresses.  (I had meant to state this in 
an earlier message and then got sidetracked with the conversation).  The 
policy with mapped addresses would be an equivalence relation where 
the signing certificates must contain all addresses in the From header 
after equivalence reductions have been made.    Nice, neat and more or 
less backward compatible with the existing deployed base.

Then you just need to figure out the mapping part, which I'm still 
somewhat skeptical on.

Cheers.

---
Steve Hole
Chief Technology Officer - Billing and Payment Systems
ACI Worldwide
<mailto:[email protected]>
Phone: 780-424-4922