To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date:
Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:56:14 -0800
In-Reply-To:
<199912030050.TAA10289@clue-store.fugawi.net>; from hannigan@fugawi.net on Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 07:50:57PM -0500
Mail-Followup-To:
dnsop@cafax.se
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Last WG call for draft-ietf-dnsop-root-opreq-02.txt.
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 07:50:57PM -0500, hannigan@fugawi.net wrote: > > You are saying that telephone and fax were more serure than unsigned > > email. > > > > Telephone is secure only in it's billing, and fax is only as secure > as telephony. Caller-ID and other signal messaging functions are > also not guaranteed. > > Anyone could call or fax and say they are someone that they > are not. > > I think this is a little vague for a security measure. Yes, it is vague, but that's the way it is. "Security" isn't exactly the characteristic being looked for in any case. "Authenticity" gets it a little better. Obviously, a telephone conversation with someone you know personally gives you *far* more assurance than an unsigned email from that same person. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain