My dear Pablo,
Unfortunately, I forgot to mention that my research consisted of reading
a few pages on the Internet, notably these: 1.)
https://helpx.adobe.com/legal/esignatures/regulations/european-union.html;
this one:
https://eidas.ec.europa.eu/efda/trust-services/browse/eidas/tls; 2.)
this one:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/DIGITAL/pages/467109076/What+is+the+legislation+-+eSignature;
and this one:
https://gregbur.me/2022/04/28/deep-dive-digitally-signing-pdfs-with-okular/.
But I very much fear that my limited knowledge on the subject
(particularly in legal matters and on the specific topic of secure
electronic signatures) has unfortunately led me to ask for a summary of
these thorny issues from a calculator that I know nothing about and that
consumes a lot of energy. I have no doubt, of course, that in the real
world things are much more complicated than a robot—which, after all,
does nothing more than calculate the probabilities of one word following
another—can certify. That is why we continue to tear our hair out,
regardless of the fictitious or actual help that robots can provide us.
My apologies if I have broken the unspoken rule of not citing my sources
and, as a result, if I have offended anyone.
Best//JP
Le 18/12/2025 à 15:15, Pablo Rodriguez via ntg-context a écrit :
On 12/17/25 22:45, Jean-Pierre Delange via ntg-context wrote:
Hi Folks !
As an European citizen seeking official and reliable information
about secure document signing, I conducted an investigation which
indicates the following.
Dear Jean-Pierre,
the text resulting from your investigation looks too much like AI-
computed text (aka AI slop).
Sorry, but I reported in `poppler` (the PDF library that ”Okular” uses
to handle PDF documents) the issue about signing some signature fields
wrong (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/poppler/poppler/-/issues/1640).
I also commented to the MR to fix that issue
(https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/poppler/poppler/-/merge_requests/1923).
You might even trust me with the following: “the output from the
investigation” may sound as a fairy tale (things in real life are way
more complex [and complicated]).
Just as a detail, PAdES from `poppler` (and then for “Okular” and
“Papers”) is technically wrong, since time is included in the signature
(not as a timestamp token). This is not allowed in PAdES.
I wish things could be as the AI-computed tale presents them, but in
real life (from what I have seen in these projects) is that there is
plenty of work and very few people to manage it.
If you allow me a suggestion, please, when sending AI-generated text to
the list, mark it clearly, so that anyone could skip it (if they are
inclined to do so). That way, we would still have an option.
Just in case you would like to know.
Cheers,
Pablo
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : [email protected] /
https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl
webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror)
archive : https://github.com/contextgarden/context
wiki : https://wiki.contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : [email protected] /
https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl
webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror)
archive : https://github.com/contextgarden/context
wiki : https://wiki.contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
