-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24.04.14 20:52, Mike Acker wrote:
On 04/23/2014 10:33 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
FWIW, i fully agree that the right place to fix this misbehavior
is in GnuPG itself, not in enigmail. I care about non-enigmail
users of GnuPG, and i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25/04/2014 22:19, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
[skipping a bunch of discussion covered elsewhere in the thread and jumping
directly to the UI/UX proposals]
On 04/22/2014 05:00 PM, Philip Jackson wrote:
What about some consideration of the time
On 04/23/2014 10:33 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
FWIW, i fully agree that the right place to fix this misbehavior is in
GnuPG itself, not in enigmail. I care about non-enigmail users of
GnuPG, and i definitely don't want to have the headache of synchronizing
key selection routines of
On 04/24/2014 02:52 PM, Mike Acker wrote:
On 04/23/2014 10:33 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
FWIW, i fully agree that the right place to fix this misbehavior is in
GnuPG itself, not in enigmail. I care about non-enigmail users of
GnuPG, and i definitely don't want to have the headache of
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 04/24/2014 02:52 PM, Mike Acker wrote:
which, as noted, is why they have per recipient rules
I know that Enigmail has these rules, and that they are a way to work
around GnuPG's suboptimal key-selection-from-email-address routine. I
think there may be better
On 04/24/2014 04:23 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 04/24/2014 02:52 PM, Mike Acker wrote:
On 04/23/2014 10:33 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
FWIW, i fully agree that the right place to fix this misbehavior is in
GnuPG itself, not in enigmail. I care about non-enigmail users of
GnuPG, and
On 04/24/2014 06:39 PM, Mike Acker wrote:
On 04/24/2014 04:23 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 04/24/2014 02:52 PM, Mike Acker wrote:
On 04/23/2014 10:33 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
FWIW, i fully agree that the right place to fix this misbehavior is in
GnuPG itself, not in enigmail. I
Philip Jackson wrote:
On 22/04/2014 01:30, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Note that enigmail's current default behavior is to simply choose the
*first* key in GPG's keyring that claims to be associated with the e-mail
address in question. This is true, even if the first key in the keyring
On 04/23/2014 09:18 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
Philip Jackson wrote:
On 22/04/2014 01:30, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Note that enigmail's current default behavior is to simply choose the
*first* key in GPG's keyring that claims to be associated with the e-mail
address in question. This is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/04/2014 01:30, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Hi Nico--
thanks for your work on this; i'm really glad to see people thinking it
through in detail.
Responses in more detail below, along with a more radical proposal that
hopefully we can
Am 21.04.2014 01:29, Daniel Kahn Gillmor schrieb/wrote:
this is a neat idea, but...
;-)
In fact, you can choose between:
Automatically send encrypted?
- Never
No automatically encrypted sending except explicitly triggered by rules
- With full trust
Automatically send encrypted
On 04/21/2014 07:09 AM, Nicolai Josuttis wrote:
Thanks a lot for this feedback, Daniel.
These are very compelling arguments.
Seems I fall into the trap of making it too good.
thanks for reading and taking this seriously.
The new approach I suggest would be just to offer:
Automatically
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am 21.04.2014 18:49, Daniel Kahn Gillmor schrieb/wrote:
On 04/21/2014 07:09 AM, Nicolai Josuttis wrote:
Thanks a lot for this feedback, Daniel. These are very compelling
arguments. Seems I fall into the trap of making it too good.
thanks for
Hi Nico--
thanks for your work on this; i'm really glad to see people thinking it
through in detail.
Responses in more detail below, along with a more radical proposal that
hopefully we can use to think through the desired behavior.
On 04/21/2014 04:11 PM, Nicolai Josuttis wrote:
Let me try
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20.04.14 15:30, Nicolai Josuttis wrote:
Hi all,
as announced some weeks ago, I just pushed a patch for a first
implementation to provide the ability to automatically encrypt
messages if all valid keys are known without the need to have a
On 20.04.14 15:30, Nicolai Josuttis wrote:
as announced some weeks ago, I just pushed a patch for a first
implementation to provide the ability to automatically encrypt
messages if all valid keys are known without the need to have a
rule for it into the sub-branch (derived from master):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am 20.04.2014 21:38, Philip Jackson schrieb/wrote:
Hi Nicolai,
I've downloaded and installed the 1.7a1pre-test version.
Patrick's link shouldn't just be clicked on though. Firefox
downloaded it and tried to install and then rejected it as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21/04/2014 00:12, Nicolai Josuttis wrote:
Am 20.04.2014 21:38, Philip Jackson schrieb/wrote:
Hi Nicolai,
I've downloaded and installed the 1.7a1pre-test version. Patrick's link
shouldn't just be clicked on though. Firefox downloaded it
On 04/20/2014 07:12 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
I think it's a really bad idea to make encryption contingent on trust
settings; it should only be contingent on validity.
let me explain this a bit further:
* setting non-zero ownertrust on someone's keys puts you at risk of
being willing to
19 matches
Mail list logo
