Re: Problems with MSP (not)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Previous message: Santosh Chokhani: "Re: Problems with MSP"

Raph:

>>>   I agree that MSP's signed receipt type is valuable, but see no reason 
>>>why it can't be implemented as, say, a MIME receipt type which is then
>>>signed with the standard MIME-based signature protocol. In other words, I 
>>>see nothing inherent in MSP that enables this feature.
>>
>> Anyone else care to comment on this?
>
>  I'd really like the answer too!

In my previous note, I talked about cryptographic binding.  Clearly, there is 
more than one way to accomplish this.  However, MSP has been implemented, 
evaluated, and tested.  The method specified in MSP is solid.

>   By the way, I did a Web search, and came across a summary of a
>discussion about three years ago on pem-dev on the suitability of MSP
>(or pre-MSP) for Internet mail. Check
>http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/Crypto_misc/dod_pmsp_sdns.standards if 
>you're interested. 

Please do not confuse MSP and PMSP.  They are very different protocols.  In 
fact, I am one of the people who argued against PMSP.

Russ

• Previous message: Santosh Chokhani: "Re: Problems with MSP"