mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?

mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?

[Andreas Fuchs]

[-- 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 --]

Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?

[Simon Josefsson]

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?

Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?

[Andreas Fuchs]

[-- 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 --]

Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?

[Josh Huber]

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

Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?

[Andreas Fuchs]

[-- 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 --]

Re: mml-secure-message-... functions should work together?

[Josh Huber]

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