Slashdot Mirror
Revising the Internet Email Infrastructure
Lauren Weinstein writes "People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) today released a white paper aimed at starting discussion and work to fundamentally revamp Internet e-mail systems to control spam, forgeries, and a range of other problems, while empowering e-mail users rather than ISPs." Excellent start.
Until this comes out, PGP is a great way to keep your email private and secure. It also deals with forged headers using email signing. MIT has a great client here
"Men lie."
"Yeah, about sleeping with other women, but never about bioluminescent plankton."
-Dan Brown
They may well come up with some "standard" for a new internet email system but, nobody is going to use it. Hell ESMTP has been out for years and it still isn't supported by more than half the systems that are on the net.
So, how long has IPV6 been out? How much of the net is converted?
PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility
TRIPOLI Project Press Release
May 8, 2003
PFIR Home Page
PFIR Announces the "TRIPOLI" Project
A Call to Arms to the Internet and Open-Source Communities!
It's Time to Secure E-Mail, Control Spam, and Empower E-Mail Users!
People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR) co-founders Lauren Weinstein and Peter G. Neumann today called on the Internet and Open-Source Communities to consider a proposal for the most significant and far-reaching changes to e-mail systems since the creation of the Internet and its ancestor ARPANET more than 30 years ago.
PFIR today released a white paper describing a proposed project to consider the implementation and deployment of widespread encryption, authentication, anti-spam, and other advances directly into the fundamental structure of Internet, intranet, and local e-mail systems.
The "TRIPOLI" project overview paper located at:
http://www.pfir.org/tripoli-overview
describes the proposed new environment which focuses on ensuring that choices and power regarding e-mail are vested directly with e-mail users themselves, rather than with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or government agencies.
The changes described by the TRIPOLI proposal could be gradually implemented, largely based upon open-source software tools that already exist. Ultimately under TRIPOLI, the volumes of forgeries and spam (both received by users and traversing the Internet) would be drastically reduced, by default all e-mail would be encrypted, and e-mail users would have essentially complete control over how they individually choose to send and receive e-mail.
"Current e-mail systems were not designed to deal with the kind of world we have today -- they've become a hopeless nightmare for users and ISPs alike," said Weinstein. "E-mail users are inundated with spam, forged mail, and other garbage, and unfortunately the actions many ISPs are taking to try control spam and other e-mail are shackling their honest customers with unreasonable restrictions and making matters even worse. Some of the proposed anti-spam laws may also exacerbate these problems without really controlling spam at all. Legitimate e-mail users need to be put back in the driver's seat, and there isn't a moment to lose."
"These problems are getting more severe every day," said Neumann. "Not only are users and networks drowning under spam and other e-mail deficiencies, but basic matters of security and reliability on the Internet are being largely ignored under the current intolerable situation. These critical problems simply cannot be fixed without coordinated and major changes to the way e-mail is handled throughout the Internet. It's going to be a big job, but we have to get going on this right now."
PFIR hopes that the TRIPOLI proposal can act as a starting point for discussion and implementation of systems to solve the many e-mail problems that exist today, in a manner that empowers users rather than unfairly restricting them. PFIR invites the participation of the open-source and Internet communities at large towards these crucial goals.
Persons interested in participating or getting more information about the TRIPOLI project can send e-mail to:
tripoli-info@pfir.org
or use the contacts listed below.
- - -
CONTACTS:
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@pfir.org
Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Peter G. Neumann
neuma
SMTP is here to stay and it won't change within any reasonable time period. It's unfortunate that it's so unsecure, but that's just the way it is.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. Remember to shoot knees first so that they won't be able to run away while you slowly torture them to death.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Have they passed their recommendations by Al Gore yet?
Trolling is a art,
I know very little about this so correct me if I am wrong. The only way to really let each user have complete control over email, would be for each user to have there own mail server and/or domain. This is why most people let their ISP's handle their mail. And you would still get crap from bulk mailers, spammers.
SMTP is here to stay. We're going to have to live with it. Spam control filtering is getting better and there is a good chance that together with decent legislation, spam can be reigned in. A new system will ultimately just create new kinds of abuse, which wil lrequire the industry to take another two year cycle to address.
Sure, ISPs can block PITS from unsavory PCAs, but what stops spammers from creating new, bogus PCAs as needed? If there are only a few "recognized" PCAs, doesn't this tend to concentrate power into a relatively small set of entities?
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
First thing is to rename it "i-mail".
Best Windows Freeware
I'm sick of reading proposals (often from industry profit-seeking types) who want to put a paid-for "stamp" or similar "token" on email. (I'm talking generally, though---yes---I did read this paper)
It looks attractive logic:
1. Lots of people use email
2. We offer a system which will beat spam at a cost---our 'trusted 3rd party' or whatever---but only if people who use it can't talk to anyone else, so everyone has to use it
3. Profit.
This is NOT the way forward on spam. Nor, realistically, is anything which re-writes the rules for email. People like editing headers. In fact, if it weren't for spam, people like email as it is---period.
The way forward seems simple:
smtp servers should start requiring genuine users to log in. (though rarely used, there are smtp systems which allow this, and most major clients---yes even the MS ones---already talk to these servers and have done for years)
servers which don't should quickly find their way onto blacklists.
(I shall leave the exact way these blacklists should be used as an exercise for the reader)
Simple. Low cost. Not a business model; but a clear solution.
Anyone want to start writing to ISPs?
...it lives and dies by the efficacy of the CAs. If the CAs suck, then the credentials they send with email mean nothing.
I like the idea, but I wonder which sort of orgs are going to be their "PCAs"? ISPs pretty much allow any comer onto their network, so giving all users a cert wouldn't stop people from making temporary accounts for spam.
Perhaps the ease with which MTAs could cut off CAs (like cutting off domains) would help give incentive to ISPs (or whoever is the PCA) to crack down on their customer base, but that strategy is only marginally successful today. Why would creds make this strategy any better?
Perhaps MTAs would be harder to config as open relays, because authn is required. But what percent of spam comes through open relays? If it's a big percentage, then this may help.
Has anyone analyzed this scenario? I'd like to hear some informed thoughts on what sort of email regime we could expect if this were implemented.
I disagree, migrating from SMTP would not be THAT difficult. Give it a 3 year phase in or whatever, and people WILL change.
Would you change your e-mail system if it eliminated SPAM? Thats what I thought.
Now... Its just too bad that this is being done by People For Internet Responsibility (PFIR). Can't a real organization tackle this? Wouldn't something like this have a much better chance for success if a standards board were doing the white paper? Who is going to implement a suggestion by PFIR. Really.
Oh well...
Those who would trade freedom for security will lose both, and deserve neither.
The current "hysteria" over spam is going to lead the Joe Sixpacks and the Mothers-protecting-their-children crowd to accept, indeed to beg for, restrictions on their liberties, all in the name of "stopping those spammers". For the rest of us, for whom "WWW" is NOT synonymous with "The Internet", this could have dire consequences. What if I run my own server, and I'm not "blessed" by the current Official AntiSpam Policy Du Jour ? Do I lose out?
Spammers suck, use your filters. DON'T give the government (and media giants, and Big ISPs) the authority to rewrite the way that the Internet works.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
As bad as the spam problem is, it's unlikely that you can get sufficient momentum in the community to displace one of the primal IP application protocols anytime soon. The solution, for better or worse, is probably going to be a combination of filtering technology, $$ legal judgements $$, and Ghu help us, legislation.
(Though anyone taking up a collection to hire the Narn Bat Squad for re-educating spammers please let me know...)
The problem with nearly every single encryption technology, or initiative for securing and improving Internet communication, is that it tries to solve too many problems at once. History has proven over and over again that it's the small, easy steps that move progress forward, not giant ones.
PGP, HTTPS, S/MIME and countless other 'standards' have all made the same mistake in trying to force users to adopt multiple new rules. What's wrong with just providing encryption, without any of the additional burdens of establishing identity? Countless transfers are sent unencrypted every day because the cost of a web server certificate - which is only expensive because it establishes identity - is so high. Anyone can make a server that provides encryption, but such a server is useless with today's browsers. And yet, I'm supposed to have faith that the people Microsoft, AOL and Opera choose to trust are the people that I want to trust?
It is obvious where email will change next, no matter how much money and time is spent on projects like this one. More and more people will use 'virtual receptionist' services that require you to return an auto-reply message to prove that you're real. Eventually, email clients will develop a way to autodetect and autoreply to these messages, until some sort of system is hammered out. You'll write your message, it will be delivered, the receiving server will connect back to you to verify that you're real, and your system will confirm it, all transparently. Someday, it'll happen in real-time, maybe. Spammers won't be able to use this, because of the increased load on a server that must stay online as long as they want their mail delivered.
That's how change happens. Not because of a bunch of idealists get together and tell me to start PGP-signing my mail. You know what? I started doing that 3 years ago. I haven't once found a single person who even knew how to verify my messages. Not to mention the pathetic state that the keyservers are in, full of expired and forgotten keys, and easily corrupted (again, I know from experience - I corrupted my own keys in an attempt to remove them permanently).
-Elentar
The wheel it turns, around and around, with an ancient rumbling sound.
Alas, we need to get the mega web-of-trust built first. And that is very, very hard to do, since people are so apathetic about PGP. (I couldn't even get Slashdot-Meetup and 2600-Meeting people to do it. Although maybe (I almost hope) the 2600 people thought I was a narc or something. ;-)
A good web-of-trust would have sooo many applications... what a waste. :(
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I see this as a dangerous time. Many people have discussed going to an e-mail system that relies on encryption and security certificates. Are we going to end up with another debacle like we have now for secure websites, where Certificate Authorities like Verisign and Thawte charge hundreds of dollars every year for a certificate and free certificates set off more alarms than a than a Great White concert in a gasoline-soaked tent?
Will Microsoft make lucrative deals with high-roller Certificate Authorities to include them in the Microsoft Exchange e-mail server? Will you be unable to run a mail server without paying big bucks to some "trusted" Certificate Authority?
If we are not careful, the only e-mail servers that will exist will be commercial e-mail servers where the owners can afford hundreds of dollars every year for certificate renewals.
Why do I believe this? Because I follow the money. If Microsoft, Verisign/Thawte, Netscape, etc. think that there's a way to make money, they will push for a standard that ensures it.
Just because SMTP can't be fixed (it can't) doesn't mean it has to die - just that a better alternative has to emerge. I'll keep my SMTP servers running indefinitely and I'll keep SMTP mail, but as better systems emerge I'll be telling people that the more reliable way to contact me is with methods that I know aren't going to give me the experience of picking through the trash when I check my mail. I'll still check my SMTP mail, but probably with decreasing frequency as time passes.
For those of you saying "just improve your filters," (1) give me a filter that can parse an HTML message containing only an image to determine whether it's spam or not (no, you can't reject all HTML mail or mail with attachments, if my brother drags-n-drops a picture of my nephew and clicks "send," I want to receive it), and (2) figure a way to keep the message from being delivered until that determination is made. Post-delivery filtering doesn't solve the bandwidth/cost/traffic problems.
Be courageous, people. Nobody screamed that we didn't need the telephone because the telegraph worked fine. Protocols emerge from changing circumstances. SMTP had its use over the last 30 years, but its time is waning with the onset of the global public internet full of untrusted senders seeking to abuse the system. It's time for a better protocol, and I applaud everyone involved in making a serious effort at developing one instead of trying to fix the unfixable.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Is not to reinvent the protocol. Spammers will disappear if nobody reads their spam (because it will be too ineffective, even at a cheap price).
The better solution is simple - let me rate the"trustworthiness" of the sender who sends me email and sort it appropriately. I can add all my family and friends to the "explicitly trusted" list. Then, the server can allow for an option such as "possibly trusted", which might include all emails from the same domain I'm in, or from domains I specify (e.g. *@mit.edu).
All other email will be tagged as "untrusted". Now, I can set my email browser to color code them, simply ignore them, or set a rule for each category. Yahoo! already does this, showing a smiley face with the emails that come from people in my address book
This can be done simply, and without rewriting any protocols. Beware people who want to reinvent the wheel to gain profit when there is no need. "Pit certification" is unnecessary, and too costly.
-Mark Radulovich, CISSP
Of course it is possible but, the probability is very low, in my opinion. It is already possible for most modern mail clients to automatically encrypt and decrypt mail, making them secure. Yet very few people use PGP or S/MIME. It is already possible for most MTAs to use SSL and/or TLS to encrypt their communications, yet most still do not use this feature. It is already possible for most POP3 and IMAP4 servers to encrypt their communications using SSL and/or TLS as well as having four or more secure authentication options available, yet most still do not use this feature.
It is possible to redesign and rebuild the email infrastructure of the internet in such a way as to completely eliminate spam and forged addresses, it is howeber improbable that good old insecure and vulnerable SMTP will be abandoned. Prior to the internet and standardization on SMTP, there were many secure mail systems around the world. There was also an inability for them to communicate with each other. This is the problem with a new system. In order for it to work and for email to remain a useful tool, everyone will have to switch and everyone will have to do it at the same time. This is highly improbable.
-Begin Rant-
The problem with spam is simple: the old rule that we should be forgiving about what we accept and strict about what we send.
We could wipe spam out, or at least render it controllable, if we simple required proper DNS entries (A, MX, PTR) and proper server configuration (HELO information, etc.)
Unfortunately, every Tom, Dick and Harry feels it is his god-given right to run a mail server despite having ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what is required to run one. The sheer number of people without postmaster and abuse accounts is astonishing and both are required. The sheer number of people without matching forward and reverse DNS entries is astonishing. The number of people who call their server "Blah" and then put in a DNS entry for "mail" without an entry for "Blah" is amazing. Although this last part is not required by the RFC's, why on earth should I have to look through my logs and see "Blah" when there is no DNS entry for it? How am I supposed to troubleshoot?
Oh well, I give up.
-End Rant-
Now we are told once more that the best cure against spam should be to reinvent something to replace the tried-and-true eMail system of decade-old reliability, just because some sociopaths apparently cannot learn to behave without getting a spanking (or jail time) and U.S. privacy laws are still too weak to stop the spam.
And after all the years that spam has plagued the networks, that's quite a poor achievement for a nation that managed to outlaw junk faxes, and had confirmation from the courts that regulating advertising does pass constitutional muster perfectly well:
Subsequently, numerous decisions have also made it crystal clear, over and over again, that neither the First Amendment nor the Dormant Commerce Clause are an obstacle to outlawing electronic spam, by fax or any kind of eMail.
Nor is it at the expense of any legitimate business. Industry itself can't stand the spam anymore.
This is not about "lawmakers never knowing enough about the Internet to regulate any aspect of it in a meaningful way", it's about doing something to prevent imposing compulsory changes to technology that keep fighting the symptoms rather than the cause.
Congress should get over such shameful cowardice and make the simple law that's needed and proven to work.
There is no need to re-engineer the Internet.
There is no justification for widespread surveillance and data retention under the poor excuse of trying to track down spammers.
There is no risk of banning mailing lists or commercial eMail.
There is no doubt what the sociopathic behavior is.
All that is needed is mandatory opt-in for unsolicited bulk eMail (encompassing all kinds of electronic messaging).
And yet some self-proclaimed "experts on electronic advertising" (whose only merit probably is that they know how to spam because they've done it a trillion times at everyone else's expense) keep pretending that opt-in wasn't legal, or feasible, or desirable.
Opt-in works, and it does not hurt anyone but the spammers.
Europe has adopted it, Australia is adopting it (how far behind do you want the U.S. to be, are we to wait for China to outlaw spam before the U.S. will?!), but most importantly the USA have successfully adopted it themselves against junk faxes.
There's probably something wrong in Washington D.C., and the news media in general, when the most insightful newspaper article on the issue comes from USA Today.
Be sure to fax or eMail it to your congress(wo)man though.
Don't spam them, but do attach some selected masterpieces of spam if you think they need an idea of what ends up in the inbox of their constituents, and of their children, 9 billion times, every single day.
Have the SMTP amended so that MTAs perform a DNS check on the previous server, and if it doesnt match correct the header. With guarenteed un-forged headers then at least reporting will be a hell of alot easier.
I think there's a fundamental difference between the problems IPV6 is trying to solve and what any "SMTP2" solution is trying to solve.
IPV6 will solve the underlying problem of running out of IP space.
"SMTP2" would NOT solve the spam problem, because it's not a technical problem, IMHO. Spammers would move over to "SMTP2" eventually. They'd just have to find that one little flaw or feature and they'd be back exploiting it like they're exploiting weaknesses in SMTP now.
If widespread adoption of "SMTP2" takes anywhere near the amount IPV6 adoption is taken, it's not going to work. Spammers would have 5 years to study the new technology and develop solutions to get their crap across the new protocol.
By the time "SMTP2" is in place and used by everybody, the spam problem would no longer be what it is now and we'd be back in the cat-and-mouse game with spammers and their spamware techniques.
All the "SMTP2" solutions I've seen would make normal Email communication between non-spammers much more difficult. I think that's something that should be avoided, even at the cost of not solving the spam problem using technology solutions.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. Remember to shoot knees first, so that they can't run away while you slowly torture them to death.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
From their webpage:
A key aspect of the Tripoli environment is the concept of a third-party certified, encrypted authentication token that would be cryptographically linked with every e-mail message. Within the Tripoli architecture, this token is referred to by the acronym "PIT" (Payload Identity Token, henceforth referred to as "Pit") and is at the core of Tripoli.
It is anticipated that all Pits considered acceptable by the vast majority of all Tripoli-compliant software user would be digitally signed by one or more designated, trustworthy, third-pary authorities who would be delegated the power to certify the validity of identity and other relevant information within Pits.
This doesn't add anything that S/MIME or PGP singed mail doesn't alrady do. And it will fail for the same reasons, putting the public key infrastructure in place is prohibitive.
It worked for https at the expense of creating the VeriSign tax, but the number of https enabled websites are few compared to the number of people using e-mail.
Ofcourse, if we bend over and hand over our e-mail to VeriSign we might finally de-throne Bill as the richest guy around...