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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1XTYr9-00080V-Vc
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:10:24 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.180; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com ([209.85.213.180])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XTYr6-0003PK-OL
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:10:23 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hn15so4222789igb.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.122.70 with SMTP id lq6mr23029945igb.8.1410797415004;
Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.4.16 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3205491.XcafbkJRvW@crushinator>
References: <20140913135528.GC6333@muck>
<3E354504-0203-4408-85A1-58A071E8546A@gmail.com>
<3586037.E6tZxYPG6n@coldstorage> <3205491.XcafbkJRvW@crushinator>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:10:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRXUZxHSPyCo-tNdFE8nSky5ocuaPp7Yo-SbTXinQOpNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1XTYr6-0003PK-OL
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Does anyone have anything at all signed
by Satoshi's PGP key?
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: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:10:24 -0000
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name> wrot=
e:
> On Monday, 15 September 2014, at 5:10 pm, Thomas Zander wrote:
>> So for instance I start including a bitcoin public key in my email signa=
ture.
>> I don't sign the emails or anything like that, just to establish that ev=
eryone
>> has my public key many times in their email archives.
>> Then when I need to proof its me, I can provide a signature on the conte=
nt
>> that the requester wants me to sign.
>
> That would not work. You would need to sign your messages. If you were me=
rely attaching your public key to them, then the email server could have be=
en systematically replacing your public key with some other public key, and=
then, when you would later try to provide a signature, your signature woul=
d not verify under the public key that everyone else had been seeing attach=
ed to your messages.
If the server could replace the public key, it could replace the
signature in all the same places.
Please, can this stuff move to another list? It's offtopic.
|
