| Summary: | missing urgent confirm read and delivery | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Unmaintained] kmail | Reporter: | Ferdinand Gassauer <gassauer> |
| Component: | general | Assignee: | kdepim bugs <kdepim-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WAITINGFORINFO | ||
| Severity: | wishlist | CC: | luigi.toscano |
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version First Reported In: | 1.3.99 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | Compiled Sources | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
|
Description
Ferdinand Gassauer
2002-02-20 21:23:17 UTC
On Thursday 21 February 2002 00:48 you wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wednesday 20 February 2002 22:23 gassauer@kde.org wrote: > <snip> > > > Urgent well it's not the bug which is urgent but the mail attribute....;-) > > <snip> > > If you can point me to a specification on priorities for internet mail > that is not broken... ;-) > > > IMHO this can be of high importance if you need to proof what you > > have posted. > > <snip> > > Read and delivery confirmations are too easily faked to represent any > kind of proof. > The only valid method of proving that the recipient read your mail is > for the recipient to return your mail's text signed by him. BTW does kmail sign the message if it replies to automaticaly? Havn't set up PGP so I can't check > > Marc > > - -- > Marc Mutz <mutz@kde.org> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > iD8DBQE8dDW03oWD+L2/6DgRAqhkAJ40qL1/yp5cVXkVEBRS5QdPWEbXKwCeNMyg > C8pxNH0q2Hmi41vx8sdh2J0= > =JBQ9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- cu ferdinand on SuSE 7.0 KDE 2.2.2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 21 February 2002 08:24 Ferdinand Gassauer wrote: > On Thursday 21 February 2002 00:48 you wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Wednesday 20 February 2002 22:23 gassauer@kde.org wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > Urgent > > well it's not the bug which is urgent but the mail attribute....;-) <snip> Well I understood so much. And I challenged you to come up with a spec=20 for this that isn't broken: > > If you can point me to a specification on priorities for internet > > mail that is not broken... ;-) <snip> > > The only valid method of proving that the recipient read your mail > > is for the recipient to return your mail's text signed by him. > > BTW does kmail sign the message if it replies to automaticaly? > Havn't set up PGP so I can't check <snip> What do mean here? You can of course tell KMail to automatically sign=20 messages. But we don't have a way to "reply automatically". If you mean=20 the forward action then "no" since you should have a look at what you=20 sign ;-) If you mean the "confirm delivery" option then that can't be signed=20 because it is in a prescribed format that other mailers mst be able to=20 parse. (Yeah currently we send just _something_ but that's a bug that=20 can't be fixed in the current framework (read: mimelib)). Marc BTW: To check signatures you don't need a secret key. Just gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.de.pgp.net --recv-keys 0xbdbfe838 0x30e0b9d8 \ 0xf869951b 0xb3b2a12c (repeat if gnupg complains about a missing .gnupg directory) then check 0xb3b2a12c's fingerprint against the one printed in the=20 "Impressum" of every c't magazine: gpg --fingerprint 0xb3b2a12c and then gpg --lsign-key 0xb3b2a12c # notice the "l"! and gpg --edit-key 0xb3b2a12c gpg> trust ... Your choice? 4 gpg> quit and you can verify Ingo's and my posts. Of course you might not trust c't to correctly certify other people's=20 keys (you just told gnupg to trust them fully) but it's a nice way to=20 get accustomed to see green boxes ;-) Marc - --=20 Marc Mutz <mutz@kde.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8dLD33oWD+L2/6DgRAiH1AJ9yRycIA8OEh2QFLPIPJSFCdhlQ8gCcD7kp ZUHdntT+L41H6Z9mBZeBdvs=3D =3DsKsF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- On Thursday 21 February 2002 09:33 you wrote: > > <snip> > > Well I understood so much. And I challenged you to come up with a spec > for this that isn't broken: > > > If you can point me to a specification on priorities for internet > > > mail that is not broken... ;-) Interesting .... :-| > > <snip> > Well beside all the point what I tried to make is kmail does not show the attributes one has choosen sending mail. -- cu ferdinand on SuSE 7.0 KDE 2.2.2 Thank you for your feature request. Kmail1 is currently unmaintained so we are closing all wishes. Please feel free to reopen a feature request for Kmail2 if it has not already been implemented. Thank you for your understanding. Instead of creating a new feature request, please confirm here if the wishlist is still valid for kmail2. |