On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 03:11:43PM -0600, Lance Simmons wrote:
>A day or two ago, someone on this list mentioned setting up a procmail
>recipe to have gpg get keys automatically.
That would be I.
>Does anyone have an example
>of such a recipe?
Not yet. But I'll elaborate a little further with what I know of
recipes, to give people suggestions should they want to take it to
the next level.
I've found that with GPG (at least 1.0.4), it's unnecessary to have a
separate key fetching command, as GPG will do it automatically if you
tell it a keyserver to try either on the command line or in the
options file. You can probably "hook into" the recipe given in the
FAQ for adding the PGP MIME header for traditional messages. The c
flag (at the beginning of the recipe) can be used to copy the message
to both gpg and formail. Or the creative use of a pipeline with
tee(1) and a named FIFO can be crafted. (mkfifo gpgpipe; tee gpgpipe
| formail ... ; gpg --verify <gpgpipe)
I personally just wait for GPG to do its thing while Mutt is bringing
up the message.
I'm curious...do users usually use a separate keyring for things like
the Mutt list? Most of the messages I read have gpg complain about
the veracity of the key used to verify the signature, as well I
suppose they should because I haven't signed them. The thing is, I
probably don't want to sign them because other than trusting the
keyserver, I cannot verify (well, would find it difficult to verify)
the individual keys. The reason I might want to have a separate ring
(e.g., --keyring mutt-users.gpg) is that it would keep them off my
"main" keyring, and I would sign them (not for redistribution) to
avoid the message each time I get a mail from those who sign.
--
Oooooo-oooo-oooo-ooooo, Oooooo-oooo-oooo-ooooo, Ooooo-weem-oh-wum-ooo-ayyy
In the jungle, the silicon jungle, the process sleeps tonight.
Joe Philipps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://www.philippsfamily.org/Joe/
public PGP/GPG key 0xFA029353 available via http://www.keyserver.net
PGP signature
