> In order to better understand the situation of MUAs and SMIME, I > think it would be worth to know the behaviour of the various MUAs > around. Right now we know that: > 1) Outlook 2000 SP-3 9.0.0.6627 is OK (doesn't check the > From header) > 2) Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1123 is KO (checks the From header) > > I will send shortly to this same thread a probe message with a > server side signature done by my mailet (so you can also see how > it looks like). Please send a feedback about how your other > different MUAs (Netscape, Eudora, Lotus Notes etc.) behave: is > the message reported as being OK as for integrity, trust and > everything else or not? >
This is the server signed message probe. Have a look on this message (the smime signature icon, the Signature.txt attachment etc.) and please report. Obviously, as I imagine that the replies will not come back at the speed of light, each one of us may see if somebody else has already replied a feedback related to a particular MUA product/version, in order to avoid jamming this list with duplicated reports. Next week I will summarize the results in this list. Thanks, Vincenzo
The message this file is attached to has been signed on the server by "Trusted Server"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to certify that the sender truly has the following address (reverse-path):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and that the message has the following message headers:
Subject: RE: From email address validation
From: "Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: null
Reply-To: null
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:23:22 +0200
The signature envelopes this attachment too.
Please check the signature integrity.
"Trusted Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
