(*** This bug was imported into bugs.kde.org ***) Package: kmail Version: 1.3.99 (using KDE 2.9.0 3 (CVS >= 20020213)) Severity: wishlist Installed from: compiled sources Compiler: gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (SuSE) OS: Linux (i686) release 2.4.10-4GB OS/Compiler notes: Hi! Urgent confirm delivery and read are not shown in the headers listview and printout. IMHO this can be of high importance if you need to proof what you have posted. cu ferdinand (Submitted via bugs.kde.org) (Called from KBugReport dialog)
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.