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