On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 10:11 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: > > For that kind of "protection" to have any real meaning, all messages > > should be cryptographically signed by their author and attached in full > > to all replies and forwards. An Evolution extension could conceivably > > enforce that. > > [...] > > Cryptographically signing each message with a public key or a trusted > > certificate is really the only way to ensure previous messages are not > > altered. > Might be obvoius: When replying to a message protected that way, > the signature for that message should include all attached messages > which came with the message replied to. That way, some verifyable "signing > chain" would be created. In case of multiple replies to a single > message, i.e. a thread, the signature chain becomes a tree (which is > verifyable nonetheless).
I've seen an app like the one he is describing, [I think]. And I don't think his meaning of "protected" goes that far - or at least not if I am thinking of the right thing. The app I used was more about just preventing slapdashery - everyone on a mail list knows that muggle's cannot quote property or slash the quoted section to a useless degree. This was just about forcing the format of the messages to be A->B->C->D and putting some additional meta-data into the header of the message for indexing, data-mining, and event injection. A specific definition of that he means by "protected" is required. Protected as in legally verifiable [cryptographically signed] or protected as in keeping a call-center operator from just deleting everything? -- Adam Tauno Williams <mailto:awill...@whitemice.org> GPG D95ED383 Systems Administrator, Python Developer, LPI / NCLA
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
