Re: Authentication and email

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

--On mandag, februar 10, 2003 14:38:10 -0800 "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" 
<paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> At 4:44 PM -0500 2/10/03, Derek Atkins wrote:
> > Yea, and look how secure our email system is....
> Well, yes, let's look. Security is available where the two end-users want
> it, and is available where any pair of servers want it. Few people turn
> it on in either step, but those who want it use it almost invisibly.
realistically....

in email, security is available whenever two users want it, have mail 
systems that implement it, and there is no bit-damaging component between 
them.
at the moment I can't send secure mail between my two mail readers (because 
I have not upgraded one of them with the optional-to-install security 
components).

and about 50% of the time I see PGP-signed mail, I get the "I don't trust 
this" beep, for one reason or another.

> >   The IESG has already
> > stated that optional security is bad (because optional security means
> > no security).  Let's not revisit that rathole.
> We fully disagree here. Forcing visible security where none is needed
> leads to most people not wanting to use security. If security is free or
> very low-cost, it should be required. When it is any more expensive
> either in processing time or in user hassle, it should be optional and
> easy to implement if used.
the IESG has "always" said that security is mandatory to *implement*.
I think we all know perfectly well that users can't be protected from 
themselves.... if they don't want it, they won't use it.

                 Harald