* mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?
@ 2002-01-24 10:10 Andreas Fuchs
2002-01-24 11:29 ` Simon Josefsson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Fuchs @ 2002-01-24 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 434 bytes --]
The current (CVS of today) message behaviour when using
mml-secure-message-encrypt-... and mml-secure-message-sign-... is to
toggle between mode=signed and mode=encrypted.
WIBNI the functions complement each other, so that one can both encrypt
and sign a message? Making mml-secure-message behave more like
mml-secure-part would do the trick, I think.
Thanks,
--
Andreas Fuchs, <asf@acm.org>, asf@jabber.at, antifuchs
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 239 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?
2002-01-24 10:10 mml-secure-message-... functions should work together? Andreas Fuchs
@ 2002-01-24 11:29 ` Simon Josefsson
2002-01-24 11:46 ` Andreas Fuchs
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Simon Josefsson @ 2002-01-24 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ding
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> The current (CVS of today) message behaviour when using
> mml-secure-message-encrypt-... and mml-secure-message-sign-... is to
> toggle between mode=signed and mode=encrypted.
>
> WIBNI the functions complement each other, so that one can both encrypt
> and sign a message? Making mml-secure-message behave more like
> mml-secure-part would do the trick, I think.
Maybe a new "signencrypt" (or encryptsign? :-)) mode would do it?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?
2002-01-24 11:29 ` Simon Josefsson
@ 2002-01-24 11:46 ` Andreas Fuchs
2002-01-24 14:53 ` Josh Huber
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Fuchs @ 2002-01-24 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 661 bytes --]
Today, Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
>> WIBNI the functions complement each other, so that one can both
>> encrypt and sign a message? Making mml-secure-message behave more
>> like mml-secure-part would do the trick, I think.
>
> Maybe a new "signencrypt" (or encryptsign? :-)) mode would do it?
Yup, that might work. Yet I think that keeping consistent with
mml-secure-part would be preferable, UI-wise. But if you have to, I'd
give my vote to signencrypt (because that's what it does: sign the
message, then encrypt it, IIRC).
--
Andreas Fuchs, <asf@acm.org>, asf@jabber.at, antifuchs
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 239 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?
2002-01-24 11:46 ` Andreas Fuchs
@ 2002-01-24 14:53 ` Josh Huber
2002-01-24 17:43 ` Andreas Fuchs
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Josh Huber @ 2002-01-24 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
Andreas Fuchs <asf@void.at> writes:
> Yup, that might work. Yet I think that keeping consistent with
> mml-secure-part would be preferable, UI-wise. But if you have to,
> I'd give my vote to signencrypt (because that's what it does: sign
> the message, then encrypt it, IIRC).
Well, with gpg.el anyway selecting "encrypt" actually signs the
message as well...
see, mml2015.el line 563.
I agree though -- we should allow the user to choose if they would
like to sign. (although, encrypting without signing should not be the
default.)
ttyl,
--
Josh Huber
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?
2002-01-24 14:53 ` Josh Huber
@ 2002-01-24 17:43 ` Andreas Fuchs
2002-01-24 17:55 ` Josh Huber
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Fuchs @ 2002-01-24 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 563 bytes --]
Today, Josh Huber <huber@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
> Well, with gpg.el anyway selecting "encrypt" actually signs the
> message as well...
Hm, a test I performed did not tell me so. The message I sent myself was
just encrypted, and not signed. This is strange...
> I agree though -- we should allow the user to choose if they would
> like to sign. (although, encrypting without signing should not be the
> default.)
I'd fully agree to the default if it did actually it sign my messages (:
--
Andreas Fuchs, <asf@acm.org>, asf@jabber.at, antifuchs
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 239 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?
2002-01-24 17:43 ` Andreas Fuchs
@ 2002-01-24 17:55 ` Josh Huber
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Josh Huber @ 2002-01-24 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
Andreas Fuchs <asf@void.at> writes:
> Hm, a test I performed did not tell me so. The message I sent myself
> was just encrypted, and not signed. This is strange...
Are you sure? expand the button with more sign/encrypt information,
and it tells me there was a valid signature.
When doing a gpg-sign-encrypt, it doesn't do a sign, then encrypt --
it's all wrapped into the same operation, and GPG just adds a
signature.
> I'd fully agree to the default if it did actually it sign my
> messages (:
It probably does :)
Well, it does for me!
Send and encrypted mail to me (0x6B21489A), so I can see what's going
on...
ttyl,
--
Josh Huber
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-24 17:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-01-24 10:10 mml-secure-message-... functions should work together? Andreas Fuchs
2002-01-24 11:29 ` Simon Josefsson
2002-01-24 11:46 ` Andreas Fuchs
2002-01-24 14:53 ` Josh Huber
2002-01-24 17:43 ` Andreas Fuchs
2002-01-24 17:55 ` Josh Huber
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).