On 06.01.2015 08:52, Ian Mann wrote:
> I experienced BCC issues with 1.7.2 and searched the web and found this
> UK Register article.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/09/enigmail_encryption_error_prompts_plaintext_panic/
> Subsequently I visited your web site and got the nightly 1.8a1 pre.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06.01.15 09:47, Alexander Buchner wrote:
> On 06.01.2015 08:52, Ian Mann wrote:
>> I experienced BCC issues with 1.7.2 and searched the web and found this
>> UK Register article.
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/09/enigmail_encryption_er
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Ian,
I'm afraid that there's a misunderstanding:
On 06.01.15 08:52, Ian Mann wrote:
> I experienced BCC issues with 1.7.2 and searched the web and found
> this UK Register article.
>
>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/09/enigmail_encryption_
I understand the potential problems with the nightly, I will move back to
stable on your next stable releas.
Yep those Graphic are very good, thanks authors.
Ian
On 06/01/15 20:05, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> I'm afraid that there's a misunderstanding:
>
> On 06.01.15 08:52, Ian Ma
Hmm, re reading I see your point, and should be less than version, 1.7.2
Hmm, I BCC'd and it seemed to encrypt but when I checked it was not encrypted,
that is why I went looking on the web for an answer.
I was sending to one of my other accounts as a test.
I am kinda happy I have the nightly
On 06.01.2015 10:29, Ian Mann wrote:
> Hmm, re reading I see your point, and should be less than version, 1.7.2
>
> Hmm, I BCC'd and it seemed to encrypt but when I checked it was not
> encrypted, that is why I went looking on the web for an answer.
>
> I was sending to one of my other accounts
Let me reload 1.7.2 and try to repeat the problem.
Then I can confirm if there is actually an issue.
Ian
On 06/01/15 21:35, Alexander Buchner wrote:
> On 06.01.2015 10:29, Ian Mann wrote:
>> Hmm, re reading I see your point, and should be less than version, 1.7.2
>>
>> Hmm, I BCC'd and it seeme
OK, rolled back to 1.7.2 TO: addressed back to my sending email
BCC one of my other accounts
BCC one of my other accounts
Pressed SEND, got pop up warning on BCC, DID PRESS HIDE BCC
Pressed NORMAL encryption, all went fine and received fine all encrypted.
I have no idea now what I did incorrect
OK, rolled back to 1.7.2 TO: addressed back to my sending email
BCC one of my other accounts
BCC one of my other accounts
Pressed SEND, got pop up warning on BCC, DID PRESS HIDE BCC
Pressed NORMAL encryption, all went fine and received fine all encrypted.
I have no idea now what I did incorrect
According to the article Enigmail only sent unencrypted when the message
was sent *only* to BCC addresses, so to test properly you have to remove
the TO to your own address.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Ian Mann wrote:
> OK, rolled back to 1.7.2 TO: addressed back to my sending email
> BCC
Correction
OK, rolled back to 1.7.2 TO: addressed back to my sending email
BCC one of my other accounts
BCC one of my other accounts
Pressed SEND, got pop up warning on BCC, _DID NOT PRESS HIDE BC_C ***Note:
added NOT
Pressed NORMAL encryption, all went fine and received fine all encrypted.
I
Will do that immediatly...
thanks
On 06/01/15 21:55, Onno Ekker wrote:
> According to the article Enigmail only sent unencrypted when the message was
> sent *only* to BCC addresses, so to test properly you have to remove the TO
> to your own address.
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Ian Mann
Hmmm, results
BCC: One of my accounts No1
BCC: One of my accounts No2
BCC: One of my accounts No3
Pressed send, did not get BCC warning or choice to hide BCC, ALL arrived at
inboxes unencrypted, but signed.
Does that result mean there is still an issue?
Ian
On 06/01/15 21:55, Onno Ekker wrote
Further, installed the nightly 1.8, no TO: Account used.
BCC account 1
BCC account 2
BCC account 3
Pressed SEND, got no BCC warning, encrypted, all arrived unencrypted,
On 06/01/15 21:55, Onno Ekker wrote:
> According to the article Enigmail only sent unencrypted when the message was
> sent *
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Ian,
On 06.01.15 12:13, Ian Mann wrote:
> Further, installed the nightly 1.8, no TO: Account used.
>
> BCC account 1
> BCC account 2
> BCC account 3
>
> Pressed SEND, got no BCC warning, encrypted, all arrived unencrypted,
I cannot reproduce t
Have tested 1.7.2 and 1.8 version the same way, they way you pointed out.
Further, installed the nightly 1.8, no TO: Account used.
and tested 1.7.2 the same method
BCC account 1
BCC account 2
BCC account 3
Pressed SEND, got no BCC warning, encrypted, all arrived unencrypted,
If this really
Probably so, it works if I use one TO: Filed, If all are BCC: I get that odd
result where none are encrypted. Give me a minute to check the answers to the
questions on set up you ask.
Ian
On 06/01/15 22:26, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On 06.01.15 12:13, Ian Mann wrote:
> > Further
Manual encryption
No BCC rules
On 06/01/15 22:26, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On 06.01.15 12:13, Ian Mann wrote:
> > Further, installed the nightly 1.8, no TO: Account used.
>
> > BCC account 1
> > BCC account 2
> > BCC account 3
>
> > Pressed SEND, got no BCC warning, encrypted, al
I can add something furtherfor version 1.8
I watched as I entered the accounts into the boxes, when I made them BCC the
padlock dropped out. Encryption OFF.
I went and re clicked the padlock and and it showed locked, or encrypted.
This time when I pressed send I got a warning and all arrive
I am going to stick with ver 1.8 because of the graphics in write mode.
The fact that you can see the large padlock alerted me to the issue I was
experiencing.
Ian
On 06/01/15 22:26, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On 06.01.15 12:13, Ian Mann wrote:
> > Further, installed the nightly
On 06/01/15 13:07, Ian Mann wrote:
> I am going to stick with ver 1.8 because of the graphics in write mode.
>
>
> The fact that you can see the large padlock alerted me to the issue I was
> experiencing.
>
I've been using "Running Enigmail version 1.8a1pre (20150102-0013)" since 2nd
Jan and my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06.01.15 15:23, Philip Jackson wrote:
> On 06/01/15 13:07, Ian Mann wrote:
>> I am going to stick with ver 1.8 because of the graphics in write mode.
>>
>>
>> The fact that you can see the large padlock alerted me to the issue I was
>> experiencin
The Graphics are pretty neat aren't they. I love 'em. I know that's not very
technical. Even Attach My Public Key is handy too. He's done a great job.
Ian
On 07/01/15 01:23, Philip Jackson wrote:
> On 06/01/15 13:07, Ian Mann wrote:
>> I am going to stick with ver 1.8 because of the graphics i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06.01.15 15:23, Philip Jackson wrote:
> On 06/01/15 13:07, Ian Mann wrote:
>> I am going to stick with ver 1.8 because of the graphics in
>> write mode.
>>
>>
>> The fact that you can see the large padlock alerted me to the
>> issue I was exper
I am going to make a point of not using BCC now.
Some may have valid reasons for needing it. I just happened to key BCC by
mistake initially and noticed the result.
That is my two cents worth.
Ian
On 07/01/15 03:23, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> On 06.01.15 15:23, Philip Jackson wrote:
> > On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/06/15 11:23, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> If you think this should be changed, then you're invited to
> discuss this here. I never use BCC recipients in conjunction with
> encryption, so I can't really estimate how to proceed here.
I tend to ag
I think you missed the point. I don't care to hear the surly comments from
people like Kristy who don't like the Enigmail performance. Let him build his
own crpyto program.
Nor do I care for your snide reply. I didn't mind when I was receiving
information on bugs and their fixes but I don't nee
On 01/06/2015 04:23 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> The point here is (I know, it's not well enough documented) that I
> decided to ignore per-recipient rules for BCC recipient; and we also
> decided to exclude BCC recipients from some of the logic for
> enabling/disabling encryption. Unfortunatel
And, this isn't political? Buzz off.
Ed
Just wanted to say...I'm so sorry you are exposed to and abused by
demented people like this: http://sixdemonbag.org/threat.xhtml <3. It
is embarrassing to be a member of the same crowd as people like this -
users who are paranoid
Well, thank you.
I sho
If I am understanding this issue correctly, a plausible real world
scenario for bcc'ing encrypted recipients is one I ran into last week:
I am working on a project that requires interaction with 3 different
stakeholder teams. All use encrypted email, but do not interact with one
another directly,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06.01.15 19:17, Editor wrote:
> I think you missed the point. I don't care to hear the surly comments
> from people like Kristy who don't like the Enigmail performance. Let
> him build his own crpyto program.
Well, from Kristies last posts I coul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06.01.15 19:23, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> (...)
> I think the right thing to do is to treat Bcc: recipients the same as
> the To: or Cc: recipients, whether that's with "convenient" settings or
> per-address rules.
>
> I believe this is a clo
Hello all. hoping I can get some quick help/pointers. I send test emails
to the adele bot and it keeps sending this back.
"
Unfortunately I could not encrypt my reply to you. A possible reason is
that the key you sent me might be a signing-only key (set so during key
generation). You can sign with
On 06.01.2015 19:30, Joe wrote:
> Hello all. hoping I can get some quick help/pointers. I send test emails
> to the adele bot and it keeps sending this back.
> "
> Unfortunately I could not encrypt my reply to you. A possible reason is
> that the key you sent me might be a signing-only key (set so
On 06/01/15 20:14, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
> On 06.01.15 19:23, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
>> (...)
>> I think the right thing to do is to treat Bcc: recipients the same as
>> the To: or Cc: recipients, whether that's with "convenient" settings or
>> per-address rules.
>
>> I believe this is
attach your Public Key and send.
On 07/01/15 05:30, Joe wrote:
> Hello all. hoping I can get some quick help/pointers. I send test emails
> to the adele bot and it keeps sending this back.
> "
> Unfortunately I could not encrypt my reply to you. A possible reason is
> that the key you sent me mi
36 matches
Mail list logo
