Subject: Re: The subject line leakage problem

From: "Housley, Russ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:44:32 -0500

I talked to Don Davis today.  I am writing this note to share his reaction 
to my summary of this thread.

First, he is pleased to see the working group addressing the subject line 
issue.  While this issue was not part of his initial concerns, he agrees 
that it deserves a solution.

Second, he would like to see the working group mandate the inclusion of the 
TO, CC, and FROM lines whenever encryption and signature are used 
together.  As he explained in is I-D, he does not believe that many users 
are able to understand the interaction between signing, encrypting, or both 
(in either order).

Third, he would like to see the TO, CC, and FROM lines automatically 
processed by the receiving mail agent software.  While he acknowledges the 
issues associated with BCC, mail lists, and so on, he firmly believes that 
the people writing the software understand the situation much better than 
mass market e-mail users.

Fourth, he would like to see the working group mandate the inclusion of the 
TO, CC, and FROM lines whenever the sending agent or the receiving agent 
represents a human.  In other words, computer-to-computer communications 
may not need these to be protected.

Russ

============================================================================
================
This e-mail, its content and any files transmitted with it are intended
solely for the addressee(s) and are PRIVILEGED and 
CONFIDENTIAL.  Access by any other party is unauthorized without the express
prior written permission of the sender.  If 
you have received this e-mail in error you may not copy, disclose to any
third party or use the contents, attachments or 
information in any way, Please delete all copies of the e-mail and the
attachment(s), if any and notify the sender. 
Thank You.
============================================================================
================

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 21:14:13 -0500

>that it deserves a solution.

Non-To: headers are of concern, but they are a completely different 
beast than To: headers with respect to Don's draft.

>together.

Why only those headers? Other headers are also important. Date: comes to mind.

>   As he explained in is I-D, he does not believe that many users

True.

>mass market e-mail users.

True.

>may not need these to be protected.

And we determine that how?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium