On CBS MoneyWatch: How to Haggle on Your Rent
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 16 of 31:
Next »
« Previous
That's Not The Way It Works
If by "users" you mean the victims (intended recipients) of spam, that's not the way it works. Only the owner of the cert can use it to sign a message. You're probably thinking of the public key part of a digital signature?the thing that your mail app installs in its security file when you open a signed message. It's true that you have the cert "on file" as a means of recognizing future messages sent from that certificate's owner, but that's not the same thing as having a cert that YOU can use to sign a message you send.

You can't sign a message using somebody else's cert, so it wouldn't do the spambags any good to have their intended victims' certs. The way it works is that the spambags need to have their OWN certs, and their messages must be signed with those certs in order for the SMTP server to even send the message, or for the receiving server to accept it. Under the proposed system, the name and return/sending server address in the message header must match the name and address on the cert, or the message fails the server test.

It's true that a digital cert with PKCS encryption keys makes the public key half of the key pair available to everyone, but it doesn't do ne'er-do-wells any good to have it. All it can be used for is sending encrypted mail to its owner, who holds the private key.

The proposed solution has nothing to do with message encryption, although it would certainly go a long way toward securing the content of e-mail messages. It's simply a matter of identifying message senders who have a legitimate reason to send mail to any recipients. It's a system of accountability, something the current chaotic system lacks.
Posted by: native alien   Posted on: 12/02/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Sickem Microsoft !!!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/02/04
Seconded  rpmyers1 | 12/02/04
Hear, hear!  d_jedi | 12/02/04
we could go after the people that run the mail servers  JasonL31 | 12/03/04
Roger that No_Ax!!!  tbbrickster_z | 12/03/04
Hey, I resemble that remark  Roger Ramjet | 12/03/04
Yeah...Sic em!!!  eulagree | 12/06/04
good for every user  us_forums@... | 05/27/07
Huzzahs!!  native alien | 12/02/04
And The Answer Is...?  slingzenarrowzuvowtrayjissforchin | 12/02/04
Public caneing?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/02/04
HAR!!  native alien | 12/02/04
Works for me  us_forums@... | 05/27/07
The Answer Is...  native alien | 12/02/04
And how does it stop zombies?  rpmyers1 | 12/02/04
That's Not The Way It Works  native alien | 12/02/04
OK...I'm Convinced  slingzenarrowzuvowtrayjissforchin | 12/02/04
Ugh...all the anti-MS fanaticism makes me sick.  Sniper_z | 12/02/04
what were you reading?  JasonL31 | 12/02/04
OhMyGawd, Yer Outa Control...  slingzenarrowzuvowtrayjissforchin | 12/02/04
Impressive  native alien | 12/02/04
Ha! You think I'm going to believe all that?  Sniper_z | 12/02/04
What a relief!  native alien | 12/02/04
Nah....  James T. Kirk | 12/03/04
5.9  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 12/02/04
Yo Sniper,didja forget your Haldon this AM???  tbbrickster_z | 12/03/04
M$ $ucks!  Roger Ramjet | 12/03/04
What's their theory?  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 12/02/04
MS Harmed  gary.douglas@... | 12/03/04
How has Microsoft been harmed by this  us_forums@... | 05/27/07
Money well spent.  Been_Done_Before | 12/03/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here