Re: [atlarge-discuss] Posting point...

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

RE: [atlarge-discuss] Posting point...Hi, Jeff H:

If any filter rule reads the message content, the message is considered to have been opened.  That is the most likely reason for the failure of the certificate.  However, it begs the question... why would anyone want to add a certificate to an email addressed to a mailing list. Apart from adding processes to the sender and the recipient, and increasing bandwidth usage, what possible purpose could it serve?  I read Mauro's messages and accept them in good faith, as I do messages from everyone else (Even the few who make me deal with an annoying receive request). Apart from the annoyance factor, the certificate means nothing to me.  Now, if Mauro were sending me the code to his secret Swiss bank account, I might want to be sure that it was certified before I went to the bank.  But would I trust that silly certificate and its "tampered" message?  Of course not.

Ron Sherwood.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeff Holt 
  To: 'Ron Sherwood' ; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de 
  Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 10:05 AM
  Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Posting point...


  I would hesitate to accuse anyone, but since my Outlook (using Word 2002) has no difficulty opening the mentioned signature and says nothing whatsoever about it being tampered with, perhaps you have misread or misunderstood what the Express version is trying to tell you?  It has been my experience that mere filtering using the Rules Wizard does not alter content, but if one tries to get too fancy and creates specialized filters there is always that possibility when adding code that errors creep into the process....  The comment suggesting the Mauro's emails have been tampered with is questionable and could be considered evidence that your email provider is being tapped, not that Mauro's emails are in some fashion invalid.  I hardly consider Outlook as it is included with MS Windows XP to be an "obscure" program. 

  Here are the contents of what Outlook tells ME when I open the signature block:

  OK: Signed by mdrios@adinet.com.uy using RSA/SHA1 at 10:57:01 PM 6/1/2003.



  Sincerely,



  TTTT

  Jefftttt@txucom.net

  www.tejas-info-services.com






  -----Original Message-----
  From: Ron Sherwood [mailto:sherwood@islands.vi]
  Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 8:37 AM
  To: Jeff Holt; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
  Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Posting point...

  Good morning, Jeff:

  You wrote:

  "The items mentioned are digital signatures used for identity

  verification.  Hugh, if you are so adamantly opposed to using better

  software and personal identification, that is of course your problem.

  It will continue to be more and more acceptable and perhaps even

  preferable for emails to have such verifications."

  Jeff: I run Outlook Express 6.0 and when I open Mauro's "Certified" mail, I

  get a message (see copy below) advising that the mail has been tampered with

  .  How do you think the mail was tampered with? And, if it was not...  of

  what value is the certificate?

  I suspect that my filter rules are interferring with the certificate. Does

  that mean that I have to turn off my filters and wade through thousands of

  spam mails just so that Mauro can send me a certificate?  To what purpose?

  Or should I too (along with most of the world) change my email client to

  some obscure program that will allow Mauro's certificate?

  Regards, Ron Sherwood

  -----copy of security message----------

  Security Warning

  There are security problems with this message.

  Please review the highlighted items listed below:

   X Message has been tampered with

  ----------------end of copy------------------------