From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
To: eric@remailer.net
Message Hash: a23d599c788482610584f8dc84ea294c21cca1d2a46e34b451f1835a4c1195a5
Message ID: <9412051922.AA04176@anchor.ho.att.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-06 00:09:43 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 16:09:43 PST
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 16:09:43 PST
To: eric@remailer.net
Subject: Re: Authentication at toad.com: WTF?
Message-ID: <9412051922.AA04176@anchor.ho.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Hmm, yes, using agents for security verification seems reasonable;
if you've got a legal relationship or other sufficient trust.
It does also require an adequate communication path between you
and your agent - on the incoming side so you know that the message
the agent verified is the message you're seeing (e.g. the agent's
signature on the message, plus potentially some check to make sure
all the messages get delivered), and on the outgoing side to make
sure your agent gets your messages correctly.
Bill
Return to December 1994
Return to “wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)”
1994-12-06 (Mon, 5 Dec 94 16:09:43 PST) - Re: Authentication at toad.com: WTF? - wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)