|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whoisnot updated yet
--On Wednesday, January 12, 2005 4:11 PM +0000 [email protected] wrote: Right now I have freedom of communication. In your vision I would hand all that over to my ISP for the benefit of giving complete control over who can communicate with me to them.Perhaps you could explain to me just how you currently manage to get port 25 packets delivered to your friends without transitting your ISP? Or did you just mean "freedom of communication" in a rhetorical sense? Yes, my port 25 packets go through my ISP. However, TLS means that none of the SMTP conversation between my mailserver and my friends mailserver is visible to my ISP in an unencrypted form. Your system would require me to expose at least the envelope information to my ISP. Do you see the difference here? And if you will trust an ISP to deliver port 25 packets then why wouldn't you trust them to deliver email messages? I don't trust them to deliver port 25 packets. I expect them to deliver port 25 packets. Then, I authenticate the system at the other end using TLS and have an encrypted coversation. My ISP can see that there's encrypted data going through their network between our servers, but, they (at least theoretically) can't see what that data is. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. Attachment:
pgp00007.pgp
|