So is it a programmed feature? If so, it's the first disclaimer product I'm aware of that does it right out of the box.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Alex Eckelberry <[email protected] > wrote: > Kevin is right, and I'll make sure the techs know. > > > > Changing a signed document goes directly against what a signed document is > supposed to be... > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > *From:* Kevin Lundy [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, March 12, 2010 12:35 PM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: VIPER: NO Disclaimers in email (caused by email digital > certificates) > > > > Yes, all certificate vendors would present this problem to ANY disclaimer > system. It's not limited to Viper. > > > > If you think about what a digital signature is doing - alerting to any > change to a message, this makes sense. A disclaimer is a change. So if > Viper were to add a disclaimer, the recipient would get a signature > warning. So the fact that Viper is not adding it is a working in your > favor. > > > > Honestly, I am surprised that SB told you they never heard of anyone using > signatures. I suspect that was really just the technicial you were dealing > with. I wouldn't be surprised if it were actually a feature they included > (but the technician didn't know about). > > > > Options: > > 1) tell people to use the cert only when needed (e.g. contract agreement, > etc) > > 2) limit the certs to the small population that needs them - have them put > the disclaimer in their normal signature file > > 3) integrate the certs into AD and use the transport rule as Michael > suggested > > > > > > Kevin > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Jeff S. Gottlieb < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Kevin, > > > > I reworded and reposted this thread (minutes ago) hoping to stimulate more > discussion…and before knowing you replied. Thank you. > > > > Interesting enough Sunbelt support, “never saw anyone using a email digital > certificate”…thus could not offer a remedy. We do not represent the defense > department so we can live without certificates, but since we are using, and > with issues **maybe** someone has a quick remedy. > > > > Let’s assume we were a VERY small minority and needed certificates…is this > an issue with COMODO or all certificates in Viper? > > > > Based on your logic (below) all certificates would present Viper users with > this issue. > > > > -J > > > > *From:* Kevin Lundy [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, March 12, 2010 7:46 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: No Disclaimers in VIPER (caused by use of email digital > certificates) > > > > I have no idea of that is a Viper feature or not, but I believe that is the > way you would want it to operate isn't it? Otherwise, the insertion of the > disclaimer would be modifying the email message, which would cause the > signature to indicate tampering. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Jeff S. Gottlieb < > [email protected]> wrote: > > We just closed a case with Sunbelt…disclaimers appeared in all email > accounts except those using digital certificates. Was wondering if anyone > else experienced the same. - Jeff > > > > Exchange 2003 > > Outlook 2007 > > Digital Security COMODO > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
