In a thread over on [email protected], i did a little thinking about the
UI/UX for cleartext signature verification in e-mail clients.

A thought experiment about clearsigned messages follows; i'd be happy to
hear feedback.

 * For cleartext messages, what if enigmail treated a bad signature and
   no signature in exactly the same way, from the receiving user's
   perspective?

   There are two ways this could be done:

    0) for broken signatures, simply show no indication that enigmail
       ever thought there might have been a signature on the message

    1) for all unsigned messages, and for all messages with broken
       signatures, always show a simple, passive enigmail header that
       says "this message had no valid signature"


The rationale that lead me to this thought experiment is:

 a) many MTAs can accidentally break signatures due to a variety of
    reasons (line-wrapping, re-encoding, filtering, markup, etc)

 b) it is trivial for any MTA that wants to *deliberately* break a
    signature to do so.

 c) it is trivial for a malicious MTA to modify an unsigned message so
    that it looks like it has a broken signature from anyone it wants.

 d) most users are not prepared to debug or repair failed signatures in
    any way.  At best, they can forward the message to someone with more
    skill who can look into it further.

 e) from an end-user perspective, a broken signature is actually not
    much different than no signature at all.  why highlight the
    difference?


What do you think?

     --dkg

PS the above proposal is not intended to address anything about
   signed+encrypted messages; cleartext messages only.

PPS i believe the above proposal is independent of the inline PGP
    vs. PGP/MIME question.  If we can avoid this thread getting bogged
    down in inline-vs-PGP/MIME, that would be lovely.

PPPS as a software developer, a debugger, and someone who likes to look
     at the internals of things, i find this proposal horrifying.
     However, as someone who cares about the sanity of non-technical
     users, i'm not sure how to justify inflicting the "BAD SIGNATURE"
     UI/UX on them when there's not much they can do about it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
enigmail-users mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here:
https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net

Reply via email to