Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:36:27PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > Hmm, OK that's kind of what I thought. But I'm still a little > > confused. Doesn't the email server have to support it? > > No. > > > Or would the "to" be one of those things not encrypted? > > Headers that are strictly

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

On 11/09/16 02:13, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> Whichever "they" you had in mind when you brought it up...? ;-) > > I said "Enigmail and other clients" -- if you don't specify which > precise implementation you're interested in, I don't know which one you > want to know about. Well, I sort of

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

On 9/10/2016 6:04 PM, Claus Assmann wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016, Anthony Papillion wrote: > >> I send an email to someone using Gmail, how does Gmail route it if the >> headers are encrypted? Or would the "to" be one of those things not > > You might want to read the RFCs about e-mail: headers

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

> Whichever "they" you had in mind when you brought it up...? ;-) I said "Enigmail and other clients" -- if you don't specify which precise implementation you're interested in, I don't know which one you want to know about. > memoryhole's readme (thanks for the link!) states that it has been >

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016, Anthony Papillion wrote: > I send an email to someone using Gmail, how does Gmail route it if the > headers are encrypted? Or would the "to" be one of those things not You might want to read the RFCs about e-mail: headers are not used for mail routing, the envelope is (just

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

On 10 Sep 2016, at 22:20, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> Do you have a link to how they plan to implement it? > > Without knowing who you mean by "they", no, I can't. Whichever "they" you had in mind when you brought it up...? ;-) > Daiki Ueno is > planning on implementing

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

> Hmm, OK that's kind of what I thought. But I'm still a little > confused. Doesn't the email server have to support it? No. > Or would the "to" be one of those things not encrypted? Headers that are strictly required to process email are not armored.

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 9/10/2016 4:00 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> I'm confused by this. What does it mean? What does 'armor the >> mail headers" mean? Is this the same as 'encrypting' the mail >> headers or does it mean something else? > > It means there's a way to

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

> Do you have a link to how they plan to implement it? Without knowing who you mean by "they", no, I can't. Daiki Ueno is planning on implementing it in Gnus. Patrick Brunschwig has already implemented limited support for it in Enigmail. You'd have to ask them how they plan to implement it.

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

Do you have a link to how they plan to implement it? Andrew Gallagher On 10 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> I'm confused by this. What does it mean? What does 'armor the mail >> headers" mean? Is this the same as 'encrypting' the mail headers or does >> it

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

> I'm confused by this. What does it mean? What does 'armor the mail > headers" mean? Is this the same as 'encrypting' the mail headers or does > it mean something else? It means there's a way to cryptographically protect most (but not all) email headers, which foils many kinds of metadata

Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

Hi Folks, In the FAQ on the gnupg.org site there is a discussion about whether it's acceptable to use PGP/MIME. The FAQ says yes and has the following statement: "Almost certainly. In the past this was a controversial question, but recently there's come to be a consensus: use PGP/MIME whenever