>vim (in ports) offers an encryption option ( >http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/editing.html#encryption) > >Invoking vim with -x prompts for a key and then encrypts the file on save. >It appears to do the right thing as far as encrypting the .swp (temporary >recovery) file as well. If you later edit the file (without the -x option) >it will detect the file is encrypted based on a magic it prepends and >prompt for a key. > >Unfortunately, by default vim uses the 'zip' algorithm which is quite >insecure, though you can optionally specify blowfish as your preferred >algorithm. > >The nice thing about this versus a gpg decrypt/edit/re-encrypt cycle is >that you don't have an unencrypted file temporarily lying around (or an >unencrypted vi-recover file for that matter). > >I'm wondering if there is any interest in adding this feature to vi(1) >given OpenBSD's interest in integrated crypto?
So you describe something which is shit. Why would we want to add something shit to vi? It would fool people into bad practices. Who benefits? Exactly. Can I ask what kind of plant are you? Sorry, just being funny. Funny ironic.
