26 May
2006
26 May
'06
8:28 p.m.
*erk* I was only signing, not encrypting.
Excuse me while I hit outlook several times and apologise profusely to
everyone. As I mentioned in my re-post for the group, I will not sign
messages to this group any more. (and for those in the industry, I've
killed the certificate, which was corrupted, which was the problem,
apparently. Outlook will happily sign a message with a corrupted
signature).
-----Original Message-----
From: Tancredi, Perry [mailto:PTancredi@verisign.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:45 AM
To: xwiki-users(a)objectweb.org
Subject: RE: [xwiki-users] Dead on-topic (was:
Slightly off-topic: Digital
ID required by some mail)
Being in the industry as such, I feel a certain
obligation to respond.
It appears that this is only a problem for the emails
that Adrian Hall
is sending (sorry Adrian). All of Adrian's emails
are encrypted. Not
to get too technical, but if the recipient doesn't
have the private key
corresponding to the certificate used to encrypt the
mail, then he or
she won't be able to open the email. This is what
Outlook means when it
complains about not being able to find your Digital
ID.
The encryption is triggered either by the user
explicitly asking for the
email to be encrypted, configuring his mail client to
always encrypt
email, or an email gateway encrypting the message, so
this may or may
not be under Adrian's control. If it is a
gateway, then the gateway can
likely be configured to not encrypt messages to this
group.
Adrian, if you want help figuring out what's going
on, I would tell you
that you can email me directly, but I'm
unfortunately one of the one's
not able to read your messages. If you can turn the
encryption off to
email me directly... well then you don't need my
help.
Cheers,
Perry
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Fernandes [mailto:rewbs.soal@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:31 PM
To: xwiki-users(a)objectweb.org
Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Dead on-topic (was:
Slightly off-topic:
Digital ID required by some mail)
I'm using gmail and haven't noticed anything
strange. Am I just not
seeing the protected emails at all? Could I be one of
the ones sending
them and not even know? Will anyone ever be able to
read this? :) Maybe
you could post the names of the senders concerned
(assuming you can
actually see the sender field), just in case they
don't realise
themselves that they are doing this.
On 26/05/06, THOMAS, BRIAN M (SBCSI)
<bt0008(a)att.com> wrote:
>
>
> Though I generally eschew "me-too"
posts, I feel the need to pile on
> here, and partly because it's not just
"me-too" but a bit of a more
> detailed approach.
>
> I am unable to open them, though it may just be a
matter of
> configuration in my mail reader. I haven't
been able to find out how
> it's done, though, and I'm beginning to
suspect that it requires some
> plugin or other that I don't have - which I
would gladly acquire if
> this weren't a fairly tightly-controlled
standard corporate desktop
machine.
>
> I think it's truly stupid of Outlook to
refuse to open a message
> merely because it can't verify it (and maybe
that's the trick- find
> the config option, if any, to tell it not to),
particularly if it
> thinks that I can't because it can't find
my own "digital ID" which is
> in no way required for verification, and I
certainly wouldn't use it
> if I weren't required to. On the other hand,
if the message is
> actually encrypted as well, then Brandon is
absolutely correct that
> the messages can't be read except by those to
whom it was specifically
addressed, which likely includes none of us, but
> only the mail-list daemon. Fortunately it can
store the message's
> plaintext so that it can be read in the archive
and in the digests.
>
> If the sender (or anyone else) knows, and can
tell us, how those of us
> with this particular affliction can read the
messages (with the
> verification feature off, of course, so we can
read it...!), I'd
> appreciate it, and that would satisfy me. And it
certainly galls me
> to suggest, or hear suggested, that a very
valuable feature should not
> be used because a significant number of people
are trapped in a
> situation where they must use inferior products,
thus forcing even
> those who don't use the monopoly product to
do without the feature.
> Needless to say, I have been galled in this way a
great deal during
> the last couple of decades, to see the strength
of this argument grow
> stronger with the monopoly and in turn strengthen
it, so that the
> predatory business practices that engendered it
are almost not even
needed to perpetuate it.
>
> So, if the message is indeed encrypted, please
ignore the ranting in
> the previous two paragraphs and stop doing that
if you want all of us
> who receive the mailing list directly to be able
to read your
> messages; if it's not, any help on how to
beat Microsoft Outlook into
> submission would be appreciated.
>
>
> brain[sic]
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Esbach, Brandon
[mailto:Esbachb@tycoelectronics.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:20 AM
> To: xwiki-users(a)objectweb.org
> Subject: [xwiki-users] Slightly off-topic:
Digital ID required by some
> mail
>
>
>
> Folks, a fair chunk of group emails the last few
weeks have had
> digital id control.
> From looking over the last few weeks, these are
the emails that are
> less likely to be responded to, as I suspect they
are not readable
> except by a select few. I suspect the online
archive is able to
> display these messages fine enough, but to be
honest (I'm not sure if
> I'm alone here); unless I'm researching a
problem before mailing the
> group, I don't really go looking there for
new posts.
>
> Suggestion:
> If it's to a mailing group I would consider
not using this method, to
> ensure whoever has a solution/suggestion can
reply to you.
>
> --
> You receive this message as a subscriber of the
> xwiki-users(a)objectweb.org mailing list.
> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:xwiki-users-unsubscribe@objectweb.org
> For general help:
mailto:sympa@objectweb.org?subject=help
> ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page:
>
>
>