Re: list of user-visible goals
Hadmut Danisch <[email protected]> Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:48:21 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.ng |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Ian, G'Day Mate, On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 07:37:55PM +1000, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Is that really a matter of the "email" mechanism or just of the > > transported content? > > I think it needs to be addressed by the "email" mechanism, because if > the medium is unsecure, unreliable, untrustworthy, can make false > address claims, or be redirected to somewhere I don't intend it to go > (to give a few examples) email cannot be readily used for secure > purposes. You should urgently distinguish between the several layers of communication. I usually use a layer model quite similar to the ISO layer model, but mapped to TCP/IP services, where every layer can have it's own security mechanism, e.g. for e-mail: 1 Physical Physical Protection 2 Data Link Switch/Media encryption 3 Network IPv4/v6 IPSEC 4 Transport TCP SSL 5 Session SMTP ? 6 Presentation RFC822 S/MIME 7 Application MailReader PGP It sh/could be a task of mail-ng to fill the gap at the '?'. But this does not mean, that every protection needs to be at the mail protocol layer (5). Each layer's security mechanism is limited to the lifetime of the transport mechanism. E.g. IPSEC might live from router to router only, SSL from Mail-relay to Mail-relay. And Mail protocol security would last from sender to receiver, but not any longer. Especially for financial transactions you definitely need a security mechanism that lasts longer than just for the transport. This means that financial transactions require security layers above layer 7 which survive the transport in space and do last in time. They need a transport independent protocol such as HBCI, which is an apropriate protocol for such purposes. It must not depend on the security of the underlying transport mechanism, including anything what has to do with e-mail transport, and thus financial transactions must be beyond the scope of a mail transport mechanism. However, this does not mean to not fill the gap at the '?', it just means that financial transactions are not the fitting example. Spam protection is a good example for a mechanism placed at the '?'. > Brisbane 4000 Australia ... I love Brizzy and I do miss bending the Bananas... regards Hadmut