Hello list, I'm trying to have mutt encrypt to multiple gpg keyids at once
when I send to a single email address.
The people behind the address (it's an email reflector) all have their own
gpg and pgp keys [1]. I've not yet found a way to make encryption to all
their keys happen with mutt 1.5.18 and gpg 1.4.9, though there are hints
that others have tried to do the same thing.
Two suggestions gleaned from searching were "pgp-hook" in mutt and "group"
in gnupg.
Per the comments on what looks like pgp-hook patches for 1.2.5, this might
have worked to aggregate them (in .muttrc):
pgp-hook al...@example.com 0xdeadbeef
pgp-hook al...@example.com 0xc0dec0de
pgp-hook al...@example.com 0xcafebabe
Yet the aggregation does not happen in 1.5.18. mutt prompts to use the
last keyid, but my selecting it with 'y' doesn't cause mutt to prompt for
the others. Rather, it then uses gpg to encrypt to that keyid alone.
Based on other hints drawn from searching, I also attempted to use pgp-hook
this way (in .muttrc):
pgp-hook al...@example.com "0xdeadbeef 0xc0dec0de 0xcafebabe"
yet mutt passes the entire list of keyids directly to gpg, which doesn't
handle a list (or command line arguments to build one) in this manner.
Digging a little deeper below mutt, I've attempted to use group in gpg
itself like this (in gpg.conf):
group al...@example.com=u1@example.com u...@example.com u...@example.com
or
group al...@example.com=0xdeadbeef 0xc0dec0de 0xcafebabe
yet in each case mutt asks for the (nonexistent) keyid for the group name
before it asks gpg to resolve the group contents.
Moving on, if I set up a mutt pgp-hook this way (in .muttrc):
pgp-hook al...@example.com alias
and a corresponding gpg group (in gpg.conf):
group alias...@example.com 0xc0dec0de u...@example.com
I end up with mutt rejecting the keyid of 'alias' before it even gets to
the point of asking gpg to resolve the group.
If I were to bite the bullet and install outside the package system, does
Dale Woolridge's multiple-crypt-hook patch get me closer to usable
encryption to multiple keys for a specific address? If so, does it still
make any sense for mutt 1.5.18 (his last update was in 2004 for 1.5.6).
Can you suggest additional things to try?
Thanks!
Richard
[1] We cannot use a shared key or conventional encryption for mail through
the reflector, as that doesn't meet our security requirements.
