From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jeff.covey@pobox.com (jeff covey) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:00:52 -0400 Subject: [sup-talk] GPG Support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1182210252-sup-8502@mona> Excerpts from Chris Lee's message of Thu May 17 17:24:11 -0400 2007: > GPG support is coming along nicely right now. great! :) sorry for the delay in replying. > If all email addresses of an email have keys, then, and only then, do I > encrypt the email - this means if you have highly sensitive info, and you > miskey an address, whoops it goes out unencrypted * I need a way to know > if the user want to encrypt and/or sign an email and then alert him/her if > I don't have all the required keys. i rarely want to send encrypted mail, and i want the mail i usually send left unencrypted so i have a clear copy for my reference. from my perspective, i'd rather just be able to hit a keybinding to turn encryption on when i want it, instead of having it done automatically. > I don't sign any email right now :( that's the main thing i use gpg for. :) > The sources.yaml file is pgp encrypted now. why is that? there doesn't seem to be any sensitive information in sources.yaml, and encrypting it makes it harder to deal with. > it'd be nice to extend protections to non-pgp users. Should I use openssl > to encrypt the config file and then have the pgp password(s) in there? i wouldn't bother with storing passwords/phrases and encrypting files, i would just let gpg prompt people for the words/phrases as needed. if they don't want to type them each time, they can use something like gpg-agent. > I only use one GPG private key, which is not tied to the sending address > (it's specified in config.yaml). This should be easy to fix if I store > all the passphrases in an encrypted file. * Do you need this feature? i only use one key myself, but it would be nice to be able to specify a key for each account under ":accounts:". > You'll have to encrypt your sources.yaml file manually before the first > time you launch sup with pgp support. This totally breaks sup-add, > sup-sync, and anything else that reads sources.yaml right now yes, again, i'm not sure why you're encrypting sources.yaml. it seems to be adding unnecessary complications. thanks again, -- jeff covey http://jeffcovey.net/