I don't have the time or the nerve to dig into all the details of this
thread. But I want to add some history and context:
The Autocrypt project worked on a draft for "Protected Headers for
Cryptographic E-mail" [1]. That became the IETF draft "Header Protection
for Cryptographically Protected E-mail" [2].
draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection is an Active Internet-Draft of the
LAMPS WG, a "Proposed Standard" and it is on track to become an RFC.
1. https://github.com/autocrypt/protected-headers
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection/
Derek Martin:
Yeah unfortunately, as Kevin admitted, this feature was never
discussed here when it was implemented
Within the Mutt project, both Autocrypt and protected headers were
discussed. I filed an issue in 2018 [3]. It was mentioned on IRC [4]. It
was mentioned on mutt-users [5]. 13 people participated in the
discussion on GitLab, among them an author of the current IETF draft
RFC.
3. https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/-/issues/28
4. https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/-/issues/28#note_73670220
5. http://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-users/Week-of-Mon-20190527/000953.html
Derek Martin:
I've never heard of Memory Hole, nor until this conversation had I
heard of autocrypt.
Kevin implemented Autocrypt in 2019. The "Mutt 1.13 Release Notes"
mention Autocrypt as very first item, including three screenshots. [6]
6. http://www.mutt.org/relnotes/1.13/
Virtually no one uses this feature
I use this feature. So do many people I know. I vote to keep it and
improve it.
Once the IETF draft is an RFC, all relevant MUAs should support this.
While the RFC is still being finalized, we have the opportunity to test
it and suggest improvements. "We believe in rough consensus and running
code."
--
ilf
If you upload your address book to "the cloud", I don't want to be in it.
