diff options
author | Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org> | 2015-07-14 15:13:45 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-07-14 13:13:50 +0000 |
commit | a45afece300e5bac593484ebba5764cb74a97c56 (patch) | |
tree | 2c504a37560ad9a3bc84b3a646bde46feb44b992 | |
parent | f15b1ae5a053589d9d1cb61af10d40eb101d8227 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-a45afece300e5bac593484ebba5764cb74a97c56.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-a45afece300e5bac593484ebba5764cb74a97c56.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: extend bip70 with OpenAlias
-rw-r--r-- | e9/ea79b30fab816c0523c6b2f557bffe911228ad | 80 |
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. + |