Gnus development mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg Troxel <gdt@lexort.com>
To: jens.lechtenboerger@fsfe.org
Cc: ding <ding@gnus.org>
Subject: Re: S/MIME verification, marking of encryped
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 07:24:52 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <smuzizraruj.fsf@linuxpal.mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1135889000.4424.1444461613315.JavaMail.open-xchange@ox1app> (jens lechtenboerger's message of "Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:20:13 +0200 (CEST)")

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1847 bytes --]


jens.lechtenboerger@fsfe.org writes:

> Hi Greg!
>
>> I'm a longtime epg user with gnupg (coming from mailcrypt and then
>> pgg), and generally it works well.  I am now trying to get set up with
>> S/MIME to interact with some people who do encrypted mail that way,
>> and finding it harder than it seems I should.
>
> If I understand correctly, they already use S/MIME, right?  So, probably
> this choice is not yours to make, but I recommend OpenPGP over S/MIME,
> as explained in a blog entry:
> https://blogs.fsfe.org/jens.lechtenboerger/2013/12/23/openpgp-and-smime/

You will notice that my messages to this list are signed with OpenPGP.
Indeed my question is about how to interoperate with people that already
use S/MIME.

Your blog post conflates the common PKI model and the S/MIME standard
itself - which I realize is how normal people come to this.  Some
organizations use S/MIME but only configure their own CAs as trust
anchors.  This is quite sane.  But I agree that that vast CA list is
goofy and inflicted on most people.

>> 1) What is the thinking on the default for smime between epg/gpgsm and
>> openssl?
>
> My recommendation is to stay away from openssl.  Use gpgsm.

So perhaps the defaults should be flipped in gnus, so that epg/gpgsm is
used, throwing an error if not found (or silently not decoding merely
signed?), unless someone has explicitly asked for the openssl version?

>> 3) When verifying openpgp/mime, I am notified of decryption status as
>> well as signatures, so that I know the message was encrypted.  I don't
>> see any hint of this with epg/gpgsm.  Any advice, other than figure it
>> out and send a patch?
>
> For signed plaintext messages I see the verification status.  For signed
> and encrypted ones not.  My advice is to go for OpenPGP :-)

You vastly overestimate my status as world dictator :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 180 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-10 11:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-07 17:23 Greg Troxel
2015-10-10  7:20 ` jens.lechtenboerger
2015-10-10 11:24   ` Greg Troxel [this message]
2015-10-11  8:17     ` jens.lechtenboerger
2015-10-13 22:05       ` Greg Troxel
2015-10-11 11:26   ` Uwe Brauer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=smuzizraruj.fsf@linuxpal.mit.edu \
    --to=gdt@lexort.com \
    --cc=ding@gnus.org \
    --cc=jens.lechtenboerger@fsfe.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).