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:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:31 PM To: [email protected] 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) <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:20 AM To: [email protected] 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 [email protected] mailing list. To unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected] For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
*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:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 8:45 AM
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:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:31 PM
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) <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 3:20 AM
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
[email protected] mailing list.
To unsubscribe:
mailto:[email protected]
For general help: mailto:[email protected]?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page:
Does the presence of a verisign employee in our mailing list means Verisign is using XWiki ? Actually I've seen a few interesting companies in our users mailing list. It would be a great help if you could publicize your usage of XWiki on this wiki page http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Installs/WebHome This would allow us to advertise the potential of XWiki and how it is used by companies that are able to make the appropriate choices when it comes to software. This allows us to more easily convince peope to use XWiki on projects with them and can help get more money to improve XWiki. Ludovic Tancredi, Perry a écrit :
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.
-- Ludovic Dubost XPertNet: http://www.xpertnet.fr/ Blog: http://www.ludovic.org/blog/ XWiki: http://www.xwiki.com Skype: ldubost AIM: nvludo Yahoo: ludovic
participants (3)
-
Adrian Hall -
Ludovic Dubost -
Tancredi, Perry