From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <0cc301c383a5$f20a2720$6400a8c0@dell01> From: "Wes Kussmaul" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> References: <0ab301c3837f$0acf0310$6400a8c0@dell01> <01b501c383a1$e2db44e0$b9844051@insultant.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] ISP filtering - update MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:45:24 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4cabbde8-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 ----- Original Message ----- From: "boyd, rounin" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [9fans] ISP filtering - update > > The final solution is to either beef up IP (bad idea) or replace > > it with a mutually authenticaticated, encrypted protocol. > > i need to read up on ZKPs, but not today. well, i read a 'bit' :) Stefan Brands, _Rethinking Public Key Policy & Building In Privacy_ , ISBN 0262024918 > a simpler solution would be to add to ESMTP some cool > auth option. maybe there is one, but i already have too > many things to juggle, read and do. if i'm gonna read an > rfc it's gonna burn a lotta energy. > > you _do not_ mis-implement an rfc. not in my beloved corps. Instead you write a new one. And since a lot of what's called for is outside the realm of technology, you need a new organization to deal with the non-tech parts. That's the formal source of the rfc. wk