Well the test failed. It's a way of authenticating the message. That's all. It can also be encrypted. In my opinion we should all get geared up to sending this type of authentication and the list server brought up to date to cope. However I think the message length needs looking into. Chris. :> -----Original Message----- :> From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- :> photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Hodges :> Sent: 29 January 2006 04:42 :> To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students :> Subject: Re: Testing -- Bzzzzzt, failed! :> :> Chris wrote: :> > :> > I recently purchased a cryptographically verifiable message. So I'd :> > like reports as to who is able to view it, if you cant then you cant. :> > :> > Chirpy Chirpy Cheap Cheap: Mummy's getting better! :> > :> > Chris. :> > :> I thought you were having a lend of me Chris. Then I noted someone :> complaining about a message they couldn't open, so I went back to your :> and had another look. :> :> I noticed a small icon and when I clicked it, it said: :> :> "Digital Signature is not valid :> This message includes a digital signature, but the signature is invalid. :> The signature does not match the message content correctly. The message :> appears to have been altered after the sender signed it. You should not :> trust the validity of this message until you verify the content of the :> message with the sender. :> :> Signed by: Chritopher Strevens :> :> Email address: nimbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx :> :> Certificate issued by: AddTrust Class 1 CA Root :> :> [View Signature Certificate] :> :> Message Not Encrypted :> This message was not encrypted before it was sent. Information sent over :> the Internet without encryption can be seen by other people while in :> transit. :> :> [OK]" :> :> So I guess the answer is a resounding *no* on both counts. Some people :> can't even (apparently) read your message, others can, but it appears to :> be invalid, and it's not something obvious and noticeable anyway. :> :> However the two huge blocks of binary crap are just as bad as attaching :> an image to your message. :> :> Oh, sorry, one of the *IS* an attached image. :> :> You have successfully tuned a 4k message into a 21k message with a net :> reduction in utility. :> :> My guess is the reason the digital signature is invalid is that the :> message has been sent via a mailing list which probably results in parts :> of the headers and maybe even the message body being rewritten. :> :> Steve :> :> p.s. Good to hear your Mum's on the mend. :> :>
