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 494503 - Evolution - Unable to request S/MIME receipt
Evolution - Unable to request S/MIME receipt
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 494460
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
2.22.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
evolution[mdn]
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-11-07 08:48 UTC by Akhil Laddha
Modified: 2008-11-03 21:39 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.21/2.22



Description Akhil Laddha 2007-11-07 08:48:58 UTC
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=233077

The ability to request an S/MIME receipt for a message digitally signed as many
beneficial function.

Firstly it enables the sender to track their message. The recipient has no
control over weather a S/MIME receipt is sent in return. This is a function ALL
mail servers.

It provides the sender the ability to be informed as to weather a message was
opened and on what date by who, it also provides information if the message was
deleted without being read.

This is an integral part of the email tracking option offered by MS since 2000
in bother outlook Express and Otlook full version. I am happy to show you the
benifits and return tracking messages from one of my MS PC's where all users
have digital signatures validated by the CA.

A GroupWise mail server will also send back S/MIME receipt unknown to the
recipient.

We need to compete quickly with Outlook and is this may be a start to further
enhance the product   as when demonstrated to a corporate MS collogue may
function they found lacking. There are several outstanding enhancements for
consideration over version 10.0-10.2.
Comment 1 André Klapper 2007-11-07 10:35:57 UTC
where's the diff to bug 494460?
Comment 2 Matthew Barnes 2008-03-11 00:36:58 UTC
Bumping version to a stable release.
Comment 3 Matthew Barnes 2008-11-03 21:39:33 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 494460 ***