1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>) id 1RcO8R-0008J7-UM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:19:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.175; envelope-from=jordanmack1981@gmail.com;
helo=mail-iy0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.210.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RcO8R-0004yj-AG
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:19:07 +0000
Received: by iakh37 with SMTP id h37so4985675iak.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.183.233 with SMTP id ep9mr23207243igc.67.1324243142026;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:19:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (c-67-188-239-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net.
[67.188.239.72])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x18sm60373102ibi.2.2011.12.18.13.18.59
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Jordan Mack <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEE58C2.1040908@parhelic.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:18:58 -0800
From: Jordan Mack <jordanmack@parhelic.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<1323979147.27319.140661012141129@webmail.messagingengine.com>
<4EEB7E98.8030006@dot-bit.org>
<CAJna-HjXp4XEHnbmX0HKsMDmnxoWQQMmqujN+D9nLV0Zz_omcg@mail.gmail.com>
<4EEBBD84.6020907@dot-bit.org>
<CAJ1JLtuhwdBC8jJsmS3pTUixdLwh0haB-Gq_CdEmEWYN0-z+QA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGQP0AH+J5Jo524o+EL9zNdHgpfTorTsyB+Ut4x0W-d9x84JZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.1 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com)
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1RcO8R-0004yj-AG
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:19:08 -0000
I can't speak for Namecoin. As for the HTTPS requirement, I'm on the
fence. Without it, the resolution is open to a man in the middle attack.
Perhaps HTTPS should be required, and if HTTP is used, a large warning
message is displayed.
As for the answered message format, is JSON the assumed structure that
would be used?
On 12/18/2011 1:05 PM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> If we chose the simple URI proposal namecoin can still be integrated
> to map the IP of the server by those who want to.
> Does it removes the necessity of the certificates?
> If so, we should let people decide between HTTP, HTTPS, namecoin or
> whatever they trust.
>
> Shouldn't we be also discussing the valid format of the answered
> message? I mean fields like "amount", "concept" and such.
>
|
