Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757226Ab0HIWYL (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:24:11 -0400 Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:48097 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754721Ab0HIWYJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:24:09 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=s0YqziBNIWtyzTHXCrII1A6/RxHLSNI6a7WGTcvgvFRGyeCuK1QXT9dU4nVzHsolSw wZp3FUSW4TxkihG0DC5swmpmwZmD8F7Me33qk/iqAsF91v1h8Q7mAovo/aevnhV4vq74 z4e9evRtwteAuQKxNHAf0wiXshyCPDgpF7DF8= Message-ID: <4C60801C.1080605@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:24:28 -0700 From: "Justin P. Mattock" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091114 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Valeo de Vries CC: linux-kernel Subject: Re: Query: Patches break with Microsoft exchange server. References: <4C5F9B25.8080401@st.com> <201008091735.11105.mihai.dontu@gmail.com> <4C6040FC.2020702@gmail.com> <201008092115.25992.mihai.dontu@gmail.com> <1281389338.7143.32.camel@localhost> <4C607998.90509@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1653 Lines: 40 On 08/09/2010 03:12 PM, Valeo de Vries wrote: > On 9 August 2010 22:56, Justin P. Mattock wrote: >> On 08/09/2010 02:28 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 21:15 +0300, Mihai Donțu wrote: >>>> >>>> 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? :-) >>> >>> Only when you assume that Exchange would pass signed messages without >>> corrupting them. It really is that broken. >>> >> >> figured the encryption would be kind of a last resort situation..but if it's >> that broken to where it wont pass it along without corrupting, then the best >> solution is to figure out what Microsoft needs in terms of encoding, i.e. is >> there a way to have the scanner scan but not throw everything around after >> it scans.(if this is what it's doing) > > The link I posted earlier seems to give the impression that > quoted-printable might do that. I may have misread that, though... > > Valeo > make sense.. Im wondering if it's a simple tell microsoft to scan the original email, take the garbled copied email and send out the original email rather than updating exchange etc... Justin P. Mattock -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/