Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-15 Thread Werner Koch
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:31, d...@fifthhorseman.net said: > afaict, GnuPG only supports (1) at the moment (this is probably OK). There is a plan to add a rewrite feature to gpg so that for example you can easily add an archiving key to a message. But that is something we need to shift to 2.3. >

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-14 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Tue 2017-02-14 15:08:25 -0500, Werner Koch wrote: > I don't think that --throw-keyid is a useful thing for use of gpg > in mails - it does not really help in this use case because that meta > data is easier available by other means. I absolutely agree with this assessment, and i also agree

RE: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-14 Thread Robert J. Hansen
> ... while adding another option may fix every small problem at hand, it > creates a huge one that is even harder to fix: We have way too many options > already. Some years ago I had the wild urge to set up Prolog code that would determine the necessary command-line flags to sustain certain

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-14 Thread Werner Koch
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:27, d...@fifthhorseman.net said: > I'm open to other suggestions about how to achieve this behavior. There is an old FIXME in the code which needs to be removed: /* FIXME: Store this all in a list and process it later so that we can prioritize what key to

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-14 Thread Justus Winter
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > On Tue 2017-02-14 05:28:07 -0500, Justus Winter wrote: >> I don't. I strongly believe that adding command line switches should be >> the absolute last resort. > > I'm open to other suggestions about how to achieve this behavior. I have

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-14 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Tue 2017-02-14 05:28:07 -0500, Justus Winter wrote: > I don't. I strongly believe that adding command line switches should be > the absolute last resort. I'm open to other suggestions about how to achieve this behavior. GnuPG's general stance appears to be that the only way to interact with

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-14 Thread Peter Lebbing
On 13/02/17 17:54, Lukas Pitschl | GPGTools wrote: > As fallback gnupg could return the information that no cached passphrase was > found, > allowing the MUA or plugin to then re-try without the option that enables > „silent“ checking. Maybe GnuPG already does this, but instead of a two-step

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-14 Thread Justus Winter
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > [ Unknown signature status ] > On Mon 2017-02-13 11:54:04 -0500, Lukas Pitschl | GPGTools wrote: >>> Am 13.02.2017 um 17:34 schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor : >>> >>> On Mon 2017-02-13 06:41:51 -0500, Bjarni Runar

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-13 Thread Bjarni Runar Einarsson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > You don't get the luxury to decide on this transition yourself, > i'm afraid. Mailpile has to deal with *other* MUAs doing > throw-keyids, just like those other MUAs have to deal with it >

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-13 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Mon 2017-02-13 18:35:17 -0500, Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote: > Sounds like a nice optimization... but option bloat is a thing too. for an API, there's nothing wrong with explicitly specifying the thing that people should *want* to be doing as a separate interface. GnuPG has some level of

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-13 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Mon 2017-02-13 11:54:04 -0500, Lukas Pitschl | GPGTools wrote: >> Am 13.02.2017 um 17:34 schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor : >> >> On Mon 2017-02-13 06:41:51 -0500, Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote: >>> Step two: Encrypt using gpg --throw-keyids. >>> >>> This is easy on the

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-13 Thread Lukas Pitschl | GPGTools
> Am 13.02.2017 um 17:34 schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor : > > On Mon 2017-02-13 06:41:51 -0500, Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote: >> Step two: Encrypt using gpg --throw-keyids. >> >> This is easy on the sender's end, but whether this feature can be >> used as a matter of course

Re: Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-13 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Mon 2017-02-13 06:41:51 -0500, Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote: > Step two: Encrypt using gpg --throw-keyids. > > This is easy on the sender's end, but whether this feature can be > used as a matter of course depends on how it impacts the > experience of the recipient. Agreed that the recipient's

Questions about --throw-keyids

2017-02-13 Thread Bjarni Runar Einarsson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks, Context: I am trying to figure out how much visible metadata I can remove from an encrypted e-mail before it becomes completely unusable. Step one: stripping stuff from the message headers is relatively easy; minimal messages with all