On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 10:11 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> > For that kind of "protection" to have any real meaning, all messages
> > should be cryptographically signed by their author and attached in full
> > to all replies and forwards.  An Evolution extension could conceivably
> > enforce that.
> > [...] 
> > Cryptographically signing each message with a public key or a trusted
> > certificate is really the only way to ensure previous messages are not
> > altered.
> Might be obvoius: When replying to a message protected that way,
> the signature for that message should include all attached messages
> which came with the message replied to. That way, some verifyable "signing
> chain" would be created. In case of multiple replies to a single
> message, i.e. a thread, the signature chain becomes a tree (which is
> verifyable nonetheless).

I've seen an app like the one he is describing, [I think].  And I don't
think his meaning of "protected" goes that far - or at least not if I am
thinking of the right thing.  The app I used was more about just
preventing slapdashery - everyone on a mail list knows that muggle's
cannot quote property or slash the quoted section to a useless degree.
This was just about forcing the format of the messages to be A->B->C->D
and putting some additional meta-data into the header of the message for
indexing, data-mining, and event injection.

A specific definition of that he means by "protected" is required.
Protected as in legally verifiable [cryptographically signed] or
protected as in keeping a call-center operator from just deleting

Adam Tauno Williams <mailto:awill...@whitemice.org> GPG D95ED383
Systems Administrator, Python Developer, LPI / NCLA

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

evolution-hackers mailing list
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...

Reply via email to