1994-12-06 - Re: Authentication at toad.com: WTF?

Header Data

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

Raw message

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





Thread