After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 204029 - "wants to receive encrypted mail" contacts option
"wants to receive encrypted mail" contacts option
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Contacts
3.6.x (obsolete)
Other All
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-addressbook-maintainers
Evolution QA team
evolution[addr_mail]
: 201760 208150 212106 212661 212901 215091 217100 219814 223950 225425 227947 231313 235885 242744 248793 259164 312939 342792 386665 386667 420211 644155 676519 681705 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 232841 259164
 
 
Reported: 2001-07-04 23:52 UTC by Dan Berger
Modified: 2021-05-19 11:46 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Dan Berger 2001-07-04 23:52:33 UTC
It would be nice if Evolution could always try to encrypt outgoing mail -
not sure how this would be implemented unless/until Evo uses a pgp/gpg glue
library (like pgg rather than fork()ing the executable).  One possibility
would be that the user has to associate a gpg/pgp key with entries in their
contacts.

The basic idea being that if you have a public key for the address you're
sending mail to, Evo should allow you to configure it to encrypt that mail
by default.
Comment 1 Jeffrey Stedfast 2001-07-05 22:35:53 UTC
Let me first say that there have been no updates to pgg in over a year
and a half, which is why Evolution doesn't use pgg.
Comment 2 Doug Elznic 2001-07-21 22:00:36 UTC
this should be handled like the html preferences for members in an
addressbook. It would make things a whole lot simpler. Just a check
box that said:

wants to receive encrypted mail 
Comment 3 Dan Berger 2001-07-24 22:37:58 UTC
sounds reasonable to me.
Comment 4 Luis Villa 2001-08-26 22:23:32 UTC
*** bug 208150 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Luis Villa 2001-08-26 22:39:06 UTC
jeff: did this finally get implemented? comments on bug 205667 seem to
indicate yes, but I don't have the very latest build here at home so I
can't verify.
Comment 6 Dan Berger 2001-08-26 22:48:28 UTC
at the risk of speaking for Jeff I believe the answer is "no" - there
are two different, but similar bugs - the one that has been resolved
is the ability to sign >all< outgoing mail.

This one is requesting the ability to tag individuals in your contacts
to whom all mail should be encrypted.
Comment 7 Jeffrey Stedfast 2001-08-27 01:38:01 UTC
Dan is 100% right on the money. This hasn't been implemented yet, and
it's looking like it may not happen till a future version (1.1?)

Since S/MIME is planned for 1.1, maybe this'd make a nice addition?
Comment 8 Luis Villa 2001-08-27 02:23:17 UTC
nominating for 1.1, then... not that there is a procedure for that but
I agree it would make a useful companion to the S/MIME work. Perhaps
it could also be not just per contact but also enable-able per domain-
i.e., I could say 'if to any_address@ximian.com encrypt it'? I'd think
that would be very useful for people in corporate settings.
Comment 9 Dan Berger 2001-08-27 05:38:32 UTC
re: selecting by domain - interesting idea, however encryption keys
are per user - so unless you have keys for every user in a given
domain, evo won't be able to encrypt outgoing mail.
Comment 10 Eric Lambart 2001-10-13 21:44:09 UTC
Awesome idea!

Personally I don't know anybody who (has told me s/he) prefers 
HTML messages, but I'd really like to be able to select certain 
contacts that will A) get PGP-signed and/or B) PGP-encrypted 
mail.  

...and I though I like Louis' domain-wide encryption idea, I 
think it would be difficult to implement (where to stick in the 
UI?) and Dan also has a good point re the availability of keys...
Comment 11 Heath Harrelson 2001-11-12 04:25:49 UTC
*** bug 215091 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12 Pete Setchell 2002-01-02 14:48:50 UTC
It would be nice to add another address book option for bug 217541
(in-line pgp). This would help you cater to owners of broken email
clients and still use proper rfc PGP/MIME for people with working mailers.
Comment 13 Heath Harrelson 2002-01-17 01:46:12 UTC
*** bug 217100 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 14 Jeffrey Stedfast 2002-05-27 07:20:44 UTC
*** bug 212106 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 15 Heath Harrelson 2002-07-25 18:32:13 UTC
*** bug 225425 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 16 Heath Harrelson 2002-07-25 18:47:19 UTC
*** bug 227947 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 17 Heath Harrelson 2002-07-25 18:49:02 UTC
*** bug 219814 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 18 aaron 2002-10-16 00:42:50 UTC
*** bug 212661 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 19 aaron 2002-10-16 00:43:07 UTC
*** bug 201760 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20 aaron 2002-10-16 00:43:53 UTC
*** bug 223950 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 21 aaron 2002-10-16 00:44:03 UTC
*** bug 231313 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 22 Gerardo Marin 2002-12-17 17:14:22 UTC
*** bug 212901 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 23 Gerardo Marin 2003-09-24 17:26:44 UTC
*** bug 248793 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 24 Gerardo Marin 2003-10-03 19:45:12 UTC
*** bug 235885 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 25 Benjamin Kellermann 2003-11-10 22:43:27 UTC
is this feature in Plan? or wont you implement this.
I think it would be a very nice feature!
Comment 26 Gerardo Marin 2003-11-12 01:36:04 UTC
It is.
Comment 27 JP Rosevear 2004-01-05 19:09:38 UTC
Too late for 2.0.
Comment 28 Sebastian Wilhelmi 2004-02-04 07:49:17 UTC
*** bug 242744 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 29 Thilo 2004-11-15 21:40:45 UTC
Whats up guys. This is still a VERY IMPORTANT issue for anybody who is
using encryption. Without it people tend to forget about signuing
mails, because you always have to uncheck before sending.

Another possible solution: We could have three buttons when "allways
sign mails" is on after submitting a mail:

1. Submit
2. Don't Sign
3. Cancel

Right now we only have 1 and 3. This wouls also make this very much
easier. I am a bit frustrated that his important issue has not ben
touched für 3 years now. I think it would be number one on my list. I
suppose very few developers use gpg?
Comment 30 André Klapper 2005-02-06 16:24:39 UTC
thilo: your request is a duplicate of bug 212488.

adding "mostfreq" keyword (15 dups should be enough imho ;-).
Comment 31 Michal J. Gajda 2005-03-13 14:51:26 UTC
Is it possible that addressbook options "Doesn't want to receive
signed mail" and "Doesn't want to receive encrypted mail" will be
implemented in final 2.2?

Sorry to harras you, but the feature is extremely important for
interoperability with other mailers (e.g. old Outlook...)
Comment 32 André Klapper 2005-10-06 12:04:19 UTC
retargetting to 2.5.
latest comment would be bug 318059
Comment 33 C Shilpa 2005-11-09 05:22:14 UTC
*** Bug 312939 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 34 Thomas D Ahle 2006-05-24 20:57:09 UTC
*** Bug 342792 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 35 Harish Krishnaswamy 2006-10-26 17:57:34 UTC
Devashish : Can I add this to the Two Ten basket ?
Comment 36 josip 2006-12-17 13:40:37 UTC
Is there any chance of adding this feature?
Comment 37 Matthew Barnes 2008-03-11 00:29:27 UTC
Bumping version to a stable release.
Comment 38 james 2008-10-30 13:45:16 UTC
I would suggest having this in the addressbook also, but include both positive and negative options, and for signatures also... 

So there is both an "always encrypt to this address" and a "never encrypt to this address"... and the same for sign.

This would allow you to set a global always encrypt/sign flag, and then negate it for individual addresses, or a global never encrypt/sign... and then specify that specific users need it.
Comment 39 Maciej (Matthew) Piechotka 2009-03-12 21:56:12 UTC
I wanted to fill similar bug but I will just post comment here. Could global option "sign always if the key in in keyring" exist? 
Comment 40 james 2009-07-25 15:35:13 UTC
I know this is only an enhancement request, but after 8 years isn't is slightly embarrassing that we've not managed to do this, it's quite simple and quite possibly somthing that would encourage corporate uptake... 
Comment 41 mgs 2009-08-31 02:02:40 UTC
This is the one feature that keeps me from moving to Evolution.  Other mailers (kmail, thunderbird and even Mail.app on OS X) have this most basic feature.
Comment 42 Andre Wyrwa 2009-09-24 15:30:54 UTC
Want to promote this bug as well. It is such a long issue and i remember back then there was talk about making the whole of the lacks in PGP functionality a GSoC project. Several summers have passed and nothing happened.

Please, can we put some priority on this? I'm often not encrypting mails to my PGP-enabled contacts simply because i forget to re-select the menu entry.

Enigmail for Thunderbird does this pretty well, as far as i remember and can therefor be used as a 'spec'.
Comment 43 phaidros 2009-12-03 11:41:31 UTC
Heh, kinda pretty old bug this ist :)

I want to second the request for an option to encrypt outgoing messages by default. As forgetting to do the 2 clicks to enable the encryption for every message happens quite too often.

Thanks alot to the devs!
Comment 44 james 2009-12-03 15:07:35 UTC
Status:  	NEW

This is obviously some strange new usage of the word "New" that I wasn't previously aware of.

Sorry for the gratuitous Douglas Adams quote, and I know you guys are working hard to get ready for 2.30, or 3.0 whichever it will be, but please please please, can we finally have some love for this request.
Comment 45 Ross Burton 2009-12-03 15:25:13 UTC
The step on from NEW is ASSIGNED, so unless you are offering to work on it yourself then it's going to stay in NEW until someone else steps up to work on it.

Remember that NEW isn't the initial state, that is UNCONFIRMED.  NEW means it's a valid bug report that has been read and triaged.Thanks for taking the time to report this bug.
Comment 46 André Klapper 2011-03-10 07:51:09 UTC
*** Bug 644155 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 47 André Klapper 2012-01-24 20:34:02 UTC
*** Bug 386665 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 48 André Klapper 2012-01-24 20:34:11 UTC
*** Bug 386667 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 49 André Klapper 2012-05-21 21:35:59 UTC
*** Bug 676519 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 50 André Klapper 2012-06-16 17:41:23 UTC
*** Bug 420211 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 51 André Klapper 2012-08-09 15:41:40 UTC
*** Bug 259164 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 52 André Klapper 2012-08-13 14:34:05 UTC
*** Bug 681706 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 53 André Klapper 2012-08-13 14:37:57 UTC
*** Bug 681705 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 54 André Klapper 2021-05-19 11:46:13 UTC
GNOME is going to shut down bugzilla.gnome.org in favor of gitlab.gnome.org. 
As part of that, we are mass-closing older open tickets in bugzilla.gnome.org (resources are unfortunately quite limited so not every ticket can get handled).

If you can still reproduce the situation described in this ticket in a recent
and supported software version, then please follow
  https://wiki.gnome.org/Community/GettingInTouch/BugReportingGuidelines
and create a new enhancement request ticket at
  https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/evolution/-/issues/

Thank you for your understanding and your help.