https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439958
--- Comment #16 from Sandro Knauß <skna...@kde.org> --- (In reply to David C. Bryant from comment #14) > (In reply to Sandro Knauß from comment #13) > > I can confirm it [snip ...] > > > > @David: can you check, if you get proper signatures, if you disable the > > picture (X-Face)? (Picture tab of the Identity). > > Yes, Sandro, signatures work fine with X-Face disabled. See the screenshot > I'm adding as an attachment to this bug report today. I am using the same > picture as was in the X-Face header as my gravatar (see discussion below). > So the message appears the same (to me) both with and without embedded > X-Face headers (except that X-Face breaks the crypto signature). Okay, than I have to look into why X-Face header sometimes breaks the signature. It needs to be any modification after the signature is done. The X-Face header have multiple lines in autosave files. So I expect, that somehow the newlines gets stripped out after the signature is created. > A friend referred me to this web page: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-autocrypt-lamps-protected- > headers-02 and raised the question "should the X-Face header be a protected > header?" I'm not real sure of the answer. Personally, I don't care if > somebody views the wrong picture in a signed message I send. Integrity of > the text message is all I really care about. Others might feel differently, > though. Well the X-Face header is for sure a non-structural header and the RFC tells us to copy ALL non-structural headers, that are known when composing the mail. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-autocrypt-lamps-protected-headers-02#section-4.1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
