summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>2015-07-14 15:13:45 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-07-14 13:13:50 +0000
commita45afece300e5bac593484ebba5764cb74a97c56 (patch)
tree2c504a37560ad9a3bc84b3a646bde46feb44b992
parentf15b1ae5a053589d9d1cb61af10d40eb101d8227 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-a45afece300e5bac593484ebba5764cb74a97c56.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-a45afece300e5bac593484ebba5764cb74a97c56.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: extend bip70 with OpenAlias
-rw-r--r--e9/ea79b30fab816c0523c6b2f557bffe911228ad80
1 files changed, 80 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/e9/ea79b30fab816c0523c6b2f557bffe911228ad b/e9/ea79b30fab816c0523c6b2f557bffe911228ad
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..f2124915c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/e9/ea79b30fab816c0523c6b2f557bffe911228ad
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+Return-Path: <thomasv@electrum.org>
+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+ [172.17.192.35])
+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58404BAC
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:13:50 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net
+ [217.70.183.195])
+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E08D51B3
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:13:49 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: from mfilter38-d.gandi.net (mfilter38-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.169])
+ by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E769A80AC
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:13:48 +0200 (CEST)
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter38-d.gandi.net
+Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195])
+ by mfilter38-d.gandi.net (mfilter38-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180])
+ (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s7EvrTud2prr
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:13:46 +0200 (CEST)
+X-Originating-IP: 92.229.101.74
+Received: from [192.168.1.3] (x5ce5654a.dyn.telefonica.de [92.229.101.74])
+ (Authenticated sender: thomasv@electrum.org)
+ by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F525A80B1
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:13:46 +0200 (CEST)
+Message-ID: <55A50B09.4010005@electrum.org>
+Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:13:45 +0200
+From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>
+User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
+ rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+References: <CA+w+GKQbOMz5nb_SnLB6Xb0FYzNZ_rEj5nbNjm2jY0+L8JJGAA@mail.gmail.com> <55A4AF62.4090607@electrum.org>
+ <55A4F058.4020800@bitcoins.info>
+In-Reply-To: <55A4F058.4020800@bitcoins.info>
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
+ autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
+ smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: extend bip70 with OpenAlias
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:13:50 -0000
+
+
+
+Le 14/07/2015 13:19, Milly Bitcoin a =E9crit :
+>=20
+>> If your email account is hacked and someone else gets a certificate in
+>> your name, you'd be unable to *know* about it, because they would use =
+a
+>> different CA.
+>=20
+> Maybe I am confused but I thought you are using DNSSEC to sign the zone=
+s
+> so only the domain owner could issue certificates for a zone (or
+> corresponding email address). If you have "example.com" the domain
+> owner of the domain would sign zone "joe.example.com" which can
+> correspond to the "joe@example.com" email address. Under this scenario
+> you would only have one CA per domain.
+>=20
+
+One CA per domain is indeed what I want to achieve. The paragraph you
+quoted was about the current situation with email certs, where that is
+not the case.
+