-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 28 April 2001 11:58, Ingo Kl=F6cker wrote:
> On Saturday, 28. April 2001 09:21, Michael H=E4ckel wrote:
> > On Saturday, 28. April 2001 00:02, Andreas Gungl wrote:
> > > Unfortunatly the same behavior occurs when forwarding a message.
> > > Here we could start a discussion, if the signature should better
> > > remain in the forwarded message. The same problem is when replying
> > > to messages with more parts. There I didn't change a similar code
> > > sequence. I'm not sure whether following parts should get touched
> > > or not.
> >
> > At least I think that replies to messages with attachment like the
> > one I'm currently replying to should be handled in the same way as
> > text only messages.
> >
> > When keeping the signature in forwarded messages, that could lead to
> > trouble, if the users adds also his own signature. I think signatures
> > in forwarded messages should only be kept, when forwarding a mails as
> > attachment, what KMail does not yet support.
>
> I disagree. If you forward a signed message and keep the signature PGP
> and GnuPG will dash-escape this signature if you add your own
> signature. Therefore this won't lead to trouble.
> The only "problem" is that KMail will only check the second signature.
> The original signature won't be checked. But at least the receiver of
> the forwarded mail could save this message, remove the signature of the
> forwarder and then check the signature of the original sender of the
> mail.
> IMHO a forwarded message shouldn't be changed in any way. This brings
> me to another point. Forwarded messages shouldn't be word wrapped. I
> know that this might not be easy to implement (if the forwarded message
> isn't forwarded as attachment) but word wrapping a signed message while
> forwarding it almost certainly breaks the signature. This shouldn't
> happen.

Well, I think we agree at least concerning the reply to messages. Encrypt=
ed=20
or signed messages should be treated like text only messages there.

If we have another behaviour for forwarding, then we need to add a new=20
parameter to some functions. I would do the complete change, but I think,=
=20
we should find a consence before.

Back to forwarding, forwarding signed messages is easy, because the=20
receiver can read them anyway. It's only the question if he can check the=
=20
original signature. What's the situation with forwarding encrypted=20
messages? I get an encrypted message from somebody else. I would like to=20
forward it to the list (after a request to the original sender). But you=20
were not able to read it, because you would need my private key. Could I=20
select the message text and try a forward then? Do have to use cut & past=
e?=20
What's the intention on forwarding encrypted messages?

My opinion tends to the fact, that I want to forward the contents, the=20
information of a message. If I forward anything, then the receiver should=
=20
trust me (my signature) that the message is okay and that I don't forward=
=20
manipulated messages. OTOH I could like to request the original sender=20
to send a direct message (encrypted or signed) without me as a relay.

Waiting for your suggestions,
Andreas
- --=20
    ~
  ' v '
 //   \\
/(     )\  Powered by Penguin.
  ^ ' ^

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE66xkmVhjiFd4beU8RAoYnAJ4/RgLGYrms4eQGOx2qxPb+95SvLQCg3wXm
yEoXxeHZJUrogXzRgsAFdyE=3D
=3DFoTf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Kmail Developers mailing list
Kmail@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail