OK, now here's the message that I'm receiving:

Message Has No Digital Signature
  This message doesn not include the sender's digital signature. The absence of
  a digital signature means that the message could have been sent by someone 
  pretending to have this enail address. It's also  possible that the message
  has been altered while in transit over the network. However, it is unlikely
  that either event has occured.
Message Cannot Be Decrypted
  This message was encrypted before it was sent to you, but it cannot be 
  decrypted. There are unknown problems with this encrypted message.

This is the whole dialog box I'm seeing. Any hints appreciated. 
Thanks in advance.

Matthias


Kai Engert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Does the message really say "cause there was no signature"?
> A more detailed message can be viewed when clicking broken key icon, or 
> by choosing "view message security info" from the menu. I would have 
> expected a message like "The certificate used to encrypt the message 
> cannot be found", which would mean you indeed do not have the correct 
> cert installed in Mozilla to decrypt the message.
> 
> Can you please quote the message you see in that dialog?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kai
> 
> Matthias Kubik wrote:
> > Hi *,
> > I'm sending an encrypted message from the office(Lotus Notes) to my
> > home account (Mozilla 1.1, 20020818). When I receive the message, I
> > see a broken key in the upper right corner, indicating that the
> > decryption failed, 'cause there was no signature. The message header
> > looks like:
> > 
> > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:23:11 +0200
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
> > Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-mime;
> >      smime-type=enveloped-data;
> >      name=smime.p7m
> > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7m"
> > Content-Description: S/MIME Enveloped Data
> > 
> > I verified that I have all req'd certificates. Signed messages appear
> > ok.
> > 
> > Does anyone know what the problem might be ?
> > 
> > Thanks in advance.
> > 
> > Matthias Kubik

Reply via email to