I received this private reply from you that doesn't look right and ignores the encrypted message in the same email.
On 1/27/22, grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/23/22, k <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Receiving an encrypted message doesn't indicate >> the sender is the same >> person who encrypted previous messages at all > > If sender included a context proof, a psk, or a chain > inside each subsequent msg for the receiver it would. > >> or that the message was >> even made in one unit by one person > > A good decrypt seems to be one "unit", and no tool can prove > what was behind the senders "unit", could be duress or hack. > >> others could also encrypt a hash tto this key, since it's public. > > Yes it's silly, yet who knows what their model might be. This is maybe the part that looks most wrong. What are you talking abour? > >> Curious what norms exist for using signify/minisgn. >> Seems formats are kind of left up to the user. > > What usage exist? OpenBSD uses it. > Search signify / minisign for more. By this I meant, how do I send you a signed message?
