Should signing be configured on a per mailbox basis? or same keys/certs for all mailboxes?
Is signing needed only for emails sent to customers or also for email notifications to users?
Should signing be configured on a per mailbox basis? or same keys/certs for all mailboxes?
There are no wildcard S/MIME certificates so it will be per mailbox basis. For testing/private usage you'll get a S/MIME for free at: https://www.actalis.it/en/certificates-for-secure-electronic-mail.aspx
Is signing needed only for emails sent to customers or also for email notifications to users?
Signing is most important for mails send to customers.
It would be nice if PGP is supported and not "only" SMIME encrypted mails. For us it's also mainly used to send sensitive data in an encrypted way to customers.
The following modes are possible:
Is "Encrypt only" mode needed?
Will it be a problem if all outgoing emails (to customers and users) from the mailbox will be signed/encrypted?
It would be nice to have the possibility to activate it per use case e.g. encrypt only to customers but send as plain text to users or encrypt to users & customers.
If the Ticketsystem runs in the same secure network as the mailserver it would be not necessary to have a user encryption (and there would need to be a pgp key for all the users in place if the ticket is encrypted and sent to the users).
Will it be a problem if all outgoing emails (to customers and users) from the mailbox will be signed/encrypted?
All signed would be great, but all encrypted can be a problem in my opinion. Encrypting should be activated per customer. (I do not need encrypting anyways.)
It would be nice if PGP is supported and not "only" SMIME encrypted mails. For us it's also mainly used to send sensitive data in an encrypted way to customers.
Till now we could not find any working OpenPGP library for SwiftMailer. There are two ones, but they are not working:
https://github.com/Mailgarant/switfmailer-openpgp
https://github.com/NightJar/SwiftSigner-CryptGPG
It seems that they [1] are also referring to the same resource which you already shared.
[1] https://github.com/swiftmailer/swiftmailer/issues/861#issuecomment-273027074
Beta version of the module: https://freescout.net/module/mail-signing/
Try SMIME and PGP and let us know if it works for you.
I can not install the module because gnupg PHP extension is not installed on my shared hosting provider. Is it possible to allow installation of the module and using S/MIME without installed gnupg PHP extension?
Fixed. Just clear the cache and try again.
Signing with S/MIME works great. 馃憣
Hi,
first i want to thank you for the nice implementation of this plugin!
I've tested the PGP part of the Extension. Here is my two cents:
apt-get install php7.3-gnupg)Signing of mails works perfectly fine.
Signing & encryption:
gpg --gen-key creates an keyring into which the certificates need to be imported (in this case the sending certificate of the mailbox mail in Freescout)My suggestions for future work would be to add a button to activate encryption (or deactivate) in the create or reply view (on a per customer lvl). This would enable the agents to send answers to people which did not provided an pgp key. In addition it would be nice if signed incoming mails automatically get imported into the keyring. At the moment a agent needs to connect with ssh to the server and import the key manually (just correct me please if i missed something). The possibility to upload pgp keys of customers over the webinterface would also be a nice addition to the module. Maybe it would be good to have an indicator in the create/reply view which tells the agent if there is already a pgp key in the keyring. A normal agent is in general not able to look into the logfiles or check if there is someting in the outgoing dropdown option listed.
Thanks for the report. We will see what can be done.
Hi!
Signing with S/MIME works like a charm. But I wonder what's the state with encryption?
As this is a very important feature to me, I appreciate this module and the work you put in it a lot!
Is there still being work done on this issue, because even though it is closed it is not fixed?
Is there still being work done on this issue, because even though it is closed it is not fixed?
No much.
Is it possible to have a look at that again, because we would really like this to be implemented
Most helpful comment
Thanks for the report. We will see what can be done.