I cross-checked the fingerprints of my home account: The personal certificate's
fingerprint and the one known to Lotus Notes are identical. I only have and had
one certificate for my businessa account, so I believe they must match.
Yesterday I removed the cert and address book entry from Notes and re-newed them.
Still the same. Somewhat weird....

Any other hints ?
Thanks.
Matthias


Kai Engert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> If your certificate is selected there, it just means, you at least once 
> had your certificate in the profile and selected it.
> 
> The real place to check, whether you still have your certificate is:
>    edit/prefs/privacy/certificates/manager certificates
> 
> Under "Your Certificates" the list of your own certificates is shown.
> 
> I don't know Lotus Notes, but you probably have the option to view the 
> list of certificates installed. In Notes, you should check which 
> certificate is used when you send mail to your home account.
> 
> At your home account, look at "Your Certificates" to check you indeed 
> have the matching personal certificate you encrypted with Lotus in the 
> office.
> 
> To be sure the cert is really identically, compare the serial numbers or 
> fingerprints (click view in cert manager, no idea about Notes).
> 
> Kai
> 
> 
> Matthias Kubik wrote:
> > Ok, 
> > how should I verify ? If I look at the "Mail & Newsgroup Account
> > Setting" -> Security, that's my certificate which shows up for signing
> > and encryption.
> > Or is there another place to look at ?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > Matthias
> > 
> > Kai Engert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > 
> >>I'd bet your profile does not contain the cert required for decrypting.
> >>
> >>Kai
> >>
> >>
> >>Matthias Kubik wrote:
> >>
> >>>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