[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: PATCH: reply to signed messages
From:       Andreas Gungl <a.gungl () gmx ! de>
Date:       2001-04-28 19:25:19
[Download RAW message or body]

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

On Saturday 28 April 2001 11:58, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Saturday, 28. April 2001 09:21, Michael Häckel 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. Encrypted 
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 
parameter to some functions. I would do the complete change, but I think, 
we should find a consence before.

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

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

Waiting for your suggestions,
Andreas
- -- 
    ~
  ' 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=
=FoTf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Kmail Developers mailing list
Kmail@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]