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 --]
next prev parent 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).