[neomutt-devel] Message security; protected header fields

[Alejandro Colomar]

Hi Derek,

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 05:20:47PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
>    g. Protecting the recipients is problematic for potentially several
>       reasons--it prevents people from interacting normally with
>       threads and their recipients.  The SMTP envelope needs at least
>       the recipient you're actually sending to in that specific SMTP
>       session, and the MTA will add the recipient's address in a
>       Received header, so hiding that at least is pointless.  But if
>       Mutt added these features it would be the only client to do so
>       (AFAIK) making it very difficult for anyone using any other
>       client to deal with.  You couldn't simply "reply-all" to, well,
>       reply to all...  And again, you can just send separate messages.
>       And if you really don't want your recipients to know about each
>       other, then you shouldn't be sending them the same message
>       anyway!  Avoid any possibility of embarrassment or worse--send
>       separate messages.

I don't think you've understood the issue at all.

Protecting the recipients and the in-reply-to doesn't mean hiding it.
It means providing a copy inside the signed part, so that it can be
verified against tampering.  It's not about encrypting them.

So, if I manage you to send me a message saying "Yeah, go ahead.", and
I change the recipient and in-reply-to header fields, I could maybe
convince someone that you said yes to a different thread.  Does that
not look like a security problem to you?  Well, that's fine.

BTW, mutt(1) is already incompatible with e.g. thunderbird(1) regarding
the Subject.  That's precisely why I wanted some agreement on this
outside of just neomutt(1).

> 2. Many of these violate existing standards, or at least have no
>    standard.  Standards exist for a reason--if you don't follow them,
>    other people who don't happen to use the exact same client as you
>    won't be able to interoperate.

I don't think so.  Again, I don't think you've understood the points.

> 3. Probably most importantly, Mutt is basically in maintenance mode,
>    i.e. no new features.  So none of this is likely to get
>    implemented, even if one of the developers happened to agree with
>    you.

I was just suggesting.  If you don't like it, then it's fine.

Have a lovely night!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.neomutt.org/pipermail/neomutt-devel-neomutt.org/attachments/20240418/f2c4069d/attachment.sig>