Subject: Query: Patches break with Microsoft exchange server.

From: [email-masked] (Justin P. Mattock)
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:53:17 -0700

On 08/09/2010 11:15 AM, Mihai Don?u wrote:
> On Monday 09 August 2010 20:55:08 Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> On 08/09/2010 07:35 AM, Mihai Don?u 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