Bug 78297

Summary: Options to allow non-base64/quoted-printable encodings for signed mail
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Raw Hide Reporter: Luca Barbieri <ldb>
Component: evolutionAssignee: Jeremy Katz <katzj>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 1.0Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2002-11-20 22:22:21 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch none

Description Luca Barbieri 2002-11-20 22:20:09 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 Galeon/1.2.6 (X11; Linux i686; U;) Gecko/20020913
Debian/1.2.6-2

Description of problem:
When signing mail Evolution forces base64 or quoted-printable for the 
purpose of reducing the likelyhood of mail gateways modifying the body 
and making the signature unverifiable. 

However, this causes serious problems when the mail has to be read by 
programs that do not understand these encodings (such as Linus Torvalds' patch
scripts). 

Furthermore, if mail is sent directly rather than through an ISP 
smarthost (and the MTA on localhost isn't broken), mail can only 
corrupted by the recipient (that presumably is capable of correctly 
configuring a mail server). 

This patch adds a couple of options to allow non-base64/quoted-printable 
encodings in GnuPG signed mail and in S/MIME signed mail. 

If you consider my implementation unacceptable, please still consider 
the feature request and provide an alternate implementation. 

The S/MIME part is untested.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
n/a

Additional info:
Comment 1 Luca Barbieri 2002-11-20 22:22:15 UTC 
Created attachment 85766 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 Jeremy Katz 2002-11-22 17:24:47 UTC 
Upstream didn't accept the patch and we're not going to fork to add new options
and change UI.  Additionally, fejj's reply as to why the patch isn't accepted
upstream applies equally here.