Oh, i see. Opaque Signing is really bad for us...
Are there any other clients doing this kind of signing?
Afaik only Microsoft products (Outlook and Outlook express). I don't
know why they do this because it even makes the complete message bigger
(because of the base64 encoding). Outlook and Outlook express will clear
sign the message when you only sign the massage. I think their thinking
was that if you are able to decrypt you are able to read an opaque
signed message.
The upcoming release of Djigzo will allow you to remove the signature
from a message. This would convert the opaque signed message to a normal
readable message. What I can add is an option that when checked it will
removed the signature from the message if the message is opaque signed.
Of course you would then loose the possibility of checking the signature.
Zitat von Martijn Brinkers <martijn(a)djigzo.com>:
lst_hoe02(a)kwsoft.de wrote:
Oh, i see. Opaque Signing is really bad for us...
Are there any other clients doing this kind of signing?
Afaik only Microsoft products (Outlook and Outlook express). I don't
know why they do this because it even makes the complete message bigger
(because of the base64 encoding). Outlook and Outlook express will clear
sign the message when you only sign the massage. I think their thinking
was that if you are able to decrypt you are able to read an opaque
signed message.
The upcoming release of Djigzo will allow you to remove the signature
from a message. This would convert the opaque signed message to a normal
readable message. What I can add is an option that when checked it will
removed the signature from the message if the message is opaque signed.
Of course you would then loose the possibility of checking the signature.
This would be no problem for us at all because as said our backend
messaging system is not S/MIME aware. So striping/converting opaque
signature will be our only chance.
Outlook 2003 has a S/MIME option for using cleartext when signing
which is on by default so this should be no problem either.