[VOIPSEC] DKIM Domain Key Identified Mail
Christopher A. Martin
chris at InfraVAST.com
Wed Nov 30 03:51:04 GMT 2005
Simon Horne wrote:
> At 07:26 AM 30/11/2005, Randell Jesup wrote:
>> "Christopher A. Martin" <chris at InfraVAST.com> writes:
>> >Maybe an announcement that user identification is pending. People
>> put up
>> >with delays from Cell phones, and there is something similar when
>> >are occuring...
>> >"Please wait while we locate the xxxxx service subscriber...."
>> And people hate that. They do significantly impact the
>> functionality for some people. Witness how people use the ability to
>> "clack" people with Nextels. Not an issue if you have to manually
>> dial a
>> phone with a rotary encoder. Much more of an issue when you have quick
>> single-button connections (especially in soft clients).
>> I'm not saying it's impossible, but adding annoyance to security
>> tends to insure it gets turned off/not implemented/ignored.
> Agree totally, the article on DKIM posted by phillp was a great read
> and covered a lot of these types of topics. I think there is a lot to
> learn from the email experience in how to apply security in an
> ubiquitous easy to use manner, Anything that takes longer or is more
> difficult to use is going to be ignored or not used. To me. I.5 sec
> delay to authenticate is too long. (Pinging the voipsa.org website
> from my office is 292ms round trip, so 150ms is not unusual from this
> part of the world). Ideally (and we've done practically in another
> protocol) this should be achievable by using existing calling
> signalling (using SAML or whatever) with the certs embedded in the
> message so it is no different to a standard call.
>> Randell Jesup, Worldgate (developers of the Ojo videophone), ex-Amiga
>> OS team
>> rjesup at wgate.com
> Simon Horne
> Packetizer Labs
See, I like the certificate route. I want to learn more about SAML. I
have always been behind making digital certificates the basis for
More information about the Voipsec