Query: Patches break with Microsoft exchange server.

[Justin P. Mattock]

On 08/09/2010 07:35 AM, Mihai Donțu 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.

Justin P. Mattock