Zitat von Martijn Brinkers <[email protected]>:

> Hi Andreas,
>
>> Half an hour ago i thought of asking for a release candidate and  
>> voila... ;-)
>> Unfortunately there is nothing in for us today :-(
>
> I'm sure there will be plenty of new features in future versions that
> will please you :)

No doubt at all :-)

>> May i ask what the timeframe (if any) is for the following features
>> (sort by importance IMHO)
>>
>> - DSN support according to RFC 1891
>> ( Needed to get DSN request through when sending mail)
>
> Isn't this the task of the MTA (i.e. of Postfix)? afaik Postfix supports
>  RFC 3461 which is the succession of RFC 1891. I probably misunderstand
> your request so could you explain to me what you mean with "DSN support
> according to RFC 1891"?

The problem is that the whole *chain* of smtp servers up to the  
recpient inbox must support DSN which is a extension of ESMTP, to be  
useful. In the Djigzo case the Java based James SMTP server does not  
support DSN until recently?? So it is more a problem of James than a  
problem with Postfix or Djigzo actually...
The DSN ends at the Djigzo gateway because of this so it is not  
possible to request a DSN beyond there.

>> - Automatic public key fetch by LDAP
>> ( Needed to make it easier to get public keys from services like
>> www.bridge-ca.org)
>
> I might be working on this feature next because a client might have a
> need for this feature. I do not have a clear timeframe but it shouldn't
> take too long.

Nice to here!

>> - User viewable tagging (subject extension) for incoming  
>> signed/encrypted mail
>> ( Sometimes it is really useful if the user is able to check)
>
> If I understand you, you want to add some sort of banner to the message
> containing the security information? something similar to what's added
> to the headers but now visible for the end-user?

Yes , this should be a easy work around to see if the message was  
signed/encrypted before it reached the gateway. No Outlook user willl  
every read e-mail headers :-(

>> - Timestamp support when signing
>> ( Not really useful today but more in a long term if clients or
>> mailarchives are able to check )
>
> I haven't had time to think about this. From our previous discussion the
> biggest problem with this is client-side support for checking the
> timestamp'd signature. The request has been placed in the development
> agenda but with a low priority.

No problem, i will try to get involved at Thunderbird etc. to see if  
there is some work in progress on the crypto part. Maybe there will be  
a chance to throw it in :-)

Regards

Andreas

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.djigzo.com/lists/listinfo/users

Reply via email to