Hi Thomas, * Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20. Nov. 2007]: > On 2007-11-20 17:21:11 +0100, Gregor Zattler wrote: > >> I second this or some other means to enable encryption to several >> keys which have no corresponding recipent in the email headers. > > I wonder if your use case is doing that automatically for every > message, or doing it interactively for a few? > > If the former, you could actually fiddle around with the PGP/GPG > command line.
That's my use case and that's the way I "fixed" it first: a) have a local Bbc: -Header and a pub key with this email address as a user-id (otherwise mutt complains because there is no key for this email address); and b) select pgp_encrypt_sign_command via send2-hooks which triggers the gpg's group feature. That's a pretty ugly hack. > If the latter, then I'd recommend adding some UI to > the compose menu to select additional keys. As far as I understand mutt enforces a mapping where each and every email address in To:, Cc: and Bcc: has to have exactly one key associated. It then calls gpg/pgp with the key-ids of these keys as arguments. The email addresses are not part of the arguments to gpg and therefore it is not (easily -- see next sentence) possible to use gpg's group configuration directive, because it's not possible to hand arbitrary strings from mutt to pgp/pgp. The only possibility to use gpg's group configuration directive in conjunction with mutt without using send2-hooks as in b) above is to name the group exactly like the key-id of the key mentioned under a) above. That's pretty ugly too. A solution to this problem could be: - crypt-hook takes more than only one argument and/or - crypt-hook arguments are passed to gpg without mapping to key-ids (at least if there are not several keys corresponding to the crypt-hook argument). Ciao, Gregor -- -... --- .-. . -.. ..--.. ...-.-
