Arshad Noor wrote: > I would add another item to this useful list, despite the fact that > it won't make it into the next release: > > - the ability to forward a signed message, and have the new recipient > verify the signature in the original message; if the forwarder added > their signature to it, then communicator would display the message > hierarchy with their respective signature verifications.
Communicator does this already (try forwarding a signed message with signing on). I think the Mozilla UI may be different, since the signing status is in the header bar, rather than in the message (on the other hand it's harder to spoof a valid signature in Mozilla using gifs and javascript than in Communicator. bob > > Arshad > > Robert Relyea wrote: > >>Around this whole forwarding scheme, there are lots of different >>semantics we could, and should, support. One would like the ability to >>make a message so that it doesn't accidently reduce it's security >>because someone forwarded (become decrypted on the wire). It would be >>nice to just add the new recipients to the recipient list without >>encrypting the whole message if possible. It would be nice to notice >>that you are simply resending on old message, and mess with it at all. >>Even better, it would be nice to at least give users the option of >>forwarding encrypted mail even if they can't decrypt it (after the >>appropriate approvals). >> >>I'm pretty sure none of this will be in Netscape 6.2, where the goal is >>simply to get back to parity with Communicator in S/Mime support. >> >>bob >>
