[cap-talk] email

[Anupam Simlot]

Rob Meijer capibara at xs4all.nl
Wed Jan 14 23:08:32 CST 2009

> What is the reason for wanting to make the messages 'not one way'?
> If it is that recipient addresses are global, why not fix that problem
> first in capability style and simply use sub addresses as sparse caps and
> build on that?

The capabilities represent a contract: if you send me
this sort of message, I'll respond like that.

> Most MDA's support some form of sub addressing like user+mailbox at domain.com.
> The mailbox part could be a per peer issued sparse cap that can be revoked
> if needed.

There's no reason the protocol can't do this but
wouldn't this allow anyone who intercepts the message a
chance to seize the capability as well?

> ( My rather delayed mailkey project http://polacanthus.net/mailkey/ will
> try to build on that with a protocol allowing free delegation with
> transfer of accountability. [snip] )

This is exactly what I was looking for. My one problem
with it is the caps can be seized by intercepting the
message. For example, let's say Oscar is a disgruntled
IT worker who's about to be fired. Knowing he's going to
go, the last thing he does is snoop in everyone's
mailbox, copy the caps he finds and sells them on the
spammer's market. Now everyone at the company and people
they've communicated with over email have to revoke the
caps and issue new ones. What a waste of time and
productivity!

---