Re: [Evolution-hackers] Developing a new protected message complement
Am Mittwoch 02 April 2014, um 19:00:33 schrieb Matthew Barnes: On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 11:02 -0430, BECERRA Silvana M SIDOR wrote: [...] However, to try to clarify a bit, what we mean by protected Email is that when reply/forward (inline mode) a protected message we're allow to write our response but we should not be able to modify the text of none of the old messages. Additionally, although not commented before, the message should also include custom field in the header that consolidates date, from, to, of all old messages in an orderly manner. 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). 2 cent, Christian -- kernel concepts GmbH Tel: +49-271-771091-11 Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48 D-57072 Siegen http://www.kernelconcepts.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Developing a new protected message complement
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 everything? -- Adam Tauno Williams mailto:awill...@whitemice.org GPG D95ED383 Systems Administrator, Python Developer, LPI / NCLA signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Developing a new protected message complement
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 12:13 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: Protected as in legally verifiable [cryptographically signed] or protected as in keeping a call-center operator from just deleting everything? Hi, if it's the later, then the easiest might be to write an external editor, setup evolution to use it (with the external-editor plugin), and then post-process the message when the writer is done with it (also possibly pre-process it). As Matthew said, trying to take care of certain sections in a composer on-the-fly would be unbearable, too complicated. Bye, Milan ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
