Subject: Re: [openpgp] Encrypting / Signing the mail subject?

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:26:56 -0400

On Sat 2015-03-28 10:19:54 -0400, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
> And I think it's not necessary if RFC 5751 would simply define that
> the "inner" protected message container *must* have the same
> Message-ID as the "outer" one.  If anyone is concerned that this
> violates the requirement of uniqueness (RFC 5322, sect. 3.6.4), the
> inner container could have instead of the "Message-ID" (which is *not*
> required!) something like a "Protected-Message-ID" with the same
> value.  If someone tampered with the "outer" message-id, the receiving
> MUA could still detect this case by the presence of the
> "Protected-Message-ID".  This approach would *not* break compatibility
> with existing implementations.

requiring the inner-message-id to be identical to the outer message-id
would mean that you would not be able to hide the message-id in an
encrypted message.

hiding the message-id would be useful, for example, when sending the
same message to multiple mailboxes, encrypted separately, but not
wanting the server operators to be able to link those messages together
as the same message.

   --dkg