Hi Nick,
On 19 July 2000 at 17:44:36 GMT -0700 (which was 01:44 where I
live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject
of "no privite key..":
MDP>>> Is this certificate any more valid?
MDP>> Nope. Any thoughts anyone?
NA> Well, in the case of an "Invalid Signature" it's not the
NA> Certificate's validity that is being questioned, but rather the
NA> integrity of the message contents.
In this instance it was the '.' at the start of my sig that triggered
the bug in beta/9 (now cured) making the contents appear invalid.
AFAICS there is still such a bug in relation to certain attachments
passing through certain servers in the current beta.
NA> What "Invalid Signature" means is that the contents have been
NA> altered to some degree since the message was sent, and therefore
NA> the message cannot be trusted to contain the information exactly
NA> the way the writer (the individual who owns the E-Mail Address
NA> attached to the Certificate) intended it to be.
Under normal circumstances that is what it will mean.
NA> The Certificate of course will gain more "credibility", for lack
NA> of a better word... when it contains the Users Name as well as the
NA> E-Mail Address, and to do that, one has to pay a visit to a Thawte
NA> Notary, or in some cases, to a Lawyer, Bank Manager or whomever
NA> else Thawte designates as a trustworthy stand-in for a Notary if
NA> there isn't one in your immediate area.
I have found one in the nearest major town to me. His charges seem
reasonable (5 pounds sterling). I may get in touch and make the 10
mile trip :-).
--
Cheers,
.\\arck
Marck D. Pearlstone, Consultant Software Engineer
Moderator TBUDL / TBBETA
www: http://www.silverstones.com
PGP key: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=GET%20MARCKKEY>
*-----------------------------------------------
| Using The Bat! 1.45 Beta/10 S/N 14F4B4B2
| under Windows 98 4.10 Build 1998
*-----------------------------------------------
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
