Re: Query: Patches break with Microsoft exchange server.

[Justin P. Mattock]

On 08/09/2010 11:15 AM, Mihai DonÈu wrote:
> On Monday 09 August 2010 20:55:08 Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> > On 08/09/2010 07:35 AM, Mihai DonÈu wrote:
> > > On Monday 09 August 2010 12:43:16 Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> > > > On 08/09/2010 02:35 AM, viresh kumar wrote:
> > > > > On 8/9/2010 2:31 PM, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:26:24PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> > > > > > > > I missed this information in my last mail. We are using git
> > > > > > > > send-email for sending patches. As patches will go through
> > > > > > > > Microsoft exchange server only, so they are broken.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let your boss complain to your IT keepers.
> > > > > > "These are Machine-to-Machine messages, they must not be modified!"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would probably be "against corporate policy" to use gmail for these
> > > > > > emails...
> > > > >
> > > > > We got one solution: Upgrade Exchange server to SP2.
> > > > > Lets see if our IT department does this upgradation.
> > > >
> > > > that or just blast them with some cryptology..i.e. pretty sure if your
> > > > message was encapsulated(AH/ESP) they couldn't tweak it.. but then
> > > > sending such encryption to a public list would require a _key_ on the
> > > > other side.. wishful thinking...
> > > > (just a thought)...
> > >
> > > Shouldn't just signing the message be enough? The server (normally) would
> > > not alter it, otherwise it will break the signature (which is a too
> > > obvious bug even for Microsoft). Or am I missing something here?
> > >
> > > PS: A local SMTP with DKIM signing capabilities could be another
> > > possibility, assuming Exchange does not break such signatures.
> >
> > yeah that would probably be just enough to get through without Microsoft
> > mucking around with the font etc.., but the biggest problem(I see) with
> > the encryption is having the key on the other end of the line.
>
> Wait. I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about message
> signing (which does not require the receiving end to have any key - it's the
> same plain text e-mail with a blob after it) while you refer to actually
> encrypting the message. Mm? Or am I being extremely slow today? :-)

no were on the same page.. keep in mind though I'm not sure how the 
message signing thing really works, if it's just a signature verifying 
that it's from you without the other end(recipient) accepting anything, 
then the question is will microsoft still scan the email and garble it up?
Now if it's a signature where the other end needs to accept the sender 
then im guessing there's a little bit of encryption there to keep 
microsoft database scanner from doing anything(but keep in mind I never 
really setup the signature thing on e-mails so I could totally be wrong)

Justin P. Mattock

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/