[Bug 94114] posibility to encrypt received unencrypted emails
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94114 Luigi Toscano changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Bug 94114] posibility to encrypt received unencrypted emails
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94114 Luigi Toscano changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Component|general |crypto Resolution|WAITINGFORINFO |--- Product|kmail |kmail2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Bug 94114] posibility to encrypt received unencrypted emails
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94114 --- Comment #7 from Hauke Laging --- (In reply to comment #6) > Instead of creating a new feature request, please confirm here if the > wishlist is still valid for kmail2. Still valid. And I would like to extend this feature wish by something that is technically very close: Keys get revoked. And of course, you never know when. The moment a key is revoked all its signatures become worthless – unless you can prove (or be sure if it's for yourself only) that the signature was made (long enough) before the revocation. The protection if IMAP accounts is many orders of magnitude weaker than that of crypto. Thus it would be nice if KMail was able of signing incoming emails. Technically it is AFAIK not possible to sign an already signed email without breaking the message format but instead an additional IMAP mailbox could be created where no email format messages are stored but simply the detached signatures of the normal emails. Those signature files could be named by the message IDs or by the hash values of the emails (or just of the signed part). The last step to happiness would be to prepare for further handling of these signatures by the option to deliver them locally to some program / script (which may request a crypto timestamp from a third party in order to be able to really prove that the signature is valid in case it gets revoked later). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Bug 94114] posibility to encrypt received unencrypted emails
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94114 Luigi Toscano changed: What|Removed |Added CC||luigi.tosc...@tiscali.it Resolution|UNMAINTAINED|WAITINGFORINFO --- Comment #6 from Luigi Toscano --- Instead of creating a new feature request, please confirm here if the wishlist is still valid for kmail2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Bug 94114] posibility to encrypt received unencrypted emails
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94114 Myriam Schweingruber changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |UNMAINTAINED --- Comment #5 from Myriam Schweingruber --- Thank you for your feature request. Kmail1 is currently unmaintained so we are closing all wishes. Please feel free to reopen a feature request for Kmail2 if it has not already been implemented. Thank you for your understanding. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
[Bug 94114] posibility to encrypt received unencrypted emails
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94114 Hauke Laging hauke laging de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ha...@laging.de --- Comment #4 from Hauke Laging 2009-01-08 01:08:40 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Even though I'm not one of the developers, in my opinion this would be a bad > idea. With this logic _every_ program should have to include its own > encryption > backend because the data it handles is possibly sensitive. That's a strange argument as far as IMAP storage is concerned. Please mind that more and more people switch from POP3 to IMAP. There is no other option for protecting data on IMAP. It would be neither a program-specific backend (because you can use GPG for any kind of data) nor be new as kmail already has the capability to decrypt and encrypt emails. The only change would be to encrypt a received mail instead of a sent one. > General encryption of files should be handled as such: encrypted files or > filesystems. Correct but irrelevant as this is not an option for those who use an IMAP service provider (does not make sense to propose everyone might set up his own IMAP server just in order to get around this simple and elegant solution by forcing volume encryption to become an option). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug. ___ Kdepim-bugs mailing list Kdepim-bugs@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdepim-bugs
