Re: default MTA
On 12/06/13 00:02, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2013-06-11 23:50:01 +0200 (+0200), Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> Something that doesn't have these limitations:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2487#section-7
> [...]
>
> That basically just makes the case for relying on (E)SMTP only for
> transporting messages, but leveraging OpenPGP or S/MIME to provide
> authentication and confidentiality where required (or for anonymity,
> Mixmaster et al).
OpenPGP and S/MIME don't guarantee anonymity as they don't (and can't
really) encrypt the headers/envelope
That is the type of `metadata' that allows a hostile party to start
building a social graph of who knows who. Even if they can't see the
contents of the communications, those social graphs are undesirable and
an ideal solution would prevent that.
Reply to: