On 06.09.13 10:10, Derek Martin wrote:
> If it's sensitive enough to be encrypted outgoing, it's sensitive
> enough to be encrypted on disk... even if you haven't actually sent it
> yet.
That's entirely convincing, but it doesn't follow that this has anything
to do with mutt, I figure. I use vim within mutt, and it is the editor
which needs to handle encrypted files, using whatever method(s) it
offers. Vim offers two levels of encryption - blowfish or zip. (OK, the
latter hardly qualifies, so there's only one method of any real
adequacy.)
That is activated on a per-file basis, conveniently allowing unencrypted
editing of general files, and even encrypting of some postponed emails,
but not others.
That's a major strength of mutt, I believe. The problem is already
solved because the toolkit of single-purpose compatible tools that is
*nix fixes it naturally, without going down the emacs path.
Erik
--
Less is more or less more.
- Y_Plentyn on #LinuxGER
