*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@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
> 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
> likely be configured to not encrypt messages to this group.
>
>
> 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@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@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
> > 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@objectweb.org
> > Subject: [xwiki-users] Slightly off-topic: Digital ID required by some
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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@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:
> > http://www.objectweb.org/wws
> >
> >
> >
>