Subject: Re: Bug#40394: forwarding an encrypted PGP message is useless

From: Volker Augustin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:56:52 +0200

> Why I am sceptic about allowing forwarding formerly encrypted mails
> unencryptedly or after re-encryption is that - for me - forwarding
> shouldn't change the original message.

As we already saw different people associate different actions with
 "forward".

> If you want to change the message, reply to it and edit the recipients.

But - for me - replying should only go back to the original sender and not
to someone else. So, from my point of view you should not even be able
to change the recipient field after selecting the reply action. Different
people, different views again.

> If you forward, you actually want to annotate the original message with
> a few lines of notes, then send the stuff on the the recipient, much like
> sticking these yellow post-it strips to a folder and write "you do that!"
> on them before telling the secretary to carry it to the next room.

Actually, in your interpretation you would stick the folder in a box with a
padlock for which you know that the recipient does not have a key, then
tell the secretary to carry it to the next room.

IMO there need to be two different forward actions. Actually we already have
them: Forward and Forward as Attachment. Their interpretation should be
applied only to the content and not the envelope. The encryption is the en-
velope here, but the signature belongs to the content.
Of course you could name them "Forward annotated" and "Forward" instead.

Volker

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:34:28 -0400

> to someone else. 

I don't think you'll find much widespread support for that view.
There are too many real world cases where you want to change the
set of recipients to whom a reply is sent.

---

From: Volker Augustin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 06:58:04 +0200

Am Thursday 11 April 2002 03:34:03 schrieb Keith Moore 
> > But - for me - replying should only go back to the original sender and
> > not to someone else.
>

Of course not. The point was only that the name of an action describes
a "general" action contract, i.e. in case of the "Reply To" you expect
that you can reply to a message. You would be badly shaken if you 
could only reply to the sender.
The same should be true for forwarding. The general action contract is
to forward something you received to someone else. It should be up to
the person who is forwarding to decide whether to forward the whole
message or only parts of it.

Volker Augustin