From: Daiki Ueno <ueno@gnu.org>
To: "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org>
Cc: Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi>,
"Neal H. Walfield" <neal@gnupg.org>,
emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: epg.el: epg--status-GET_LINE not working?
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 10:37:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lgo0bq26.fsf-ueno@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8737a9we4a.wl-neal@walfield.org> (Neal H. Walfield's message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2017 21:37:41 +0200")
"Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org> writes:
>> At that time, the GnuPG developers didn't seem to have a consensus on
>> how TOFU is supposed to work:
>
> FWIW, the TOFU modus operandi are unlikely to change at this stage and
> have been stable for nearly a year.
I wouldn't call it "stable" just because the code has been there for a
year. What about the deployment? Do you have any example of MUA
implementing this feature, other than Emacs?
> My recollection is that you said: if a recipient is specified by key
> id rather than by email address (e.g., gpg is called like: 'gpg -e -r
> KEYID') and the key has a conflict, the conflict should be ignored.
No. My concern is why GnuPG detects a conflict, even though it is _not_
given an email address to consider (i.e. signature verification).
> 2. AFAIK, there is no precedence for this behavior in gpg. Consider
> an expired or revoked key: if you try to use it, gpg will error out
> with "unusable public key."
Erroring out and prompting user are a different behavior.
Perhaps you implemented TOFU this way (prompting user) because you use
Wanderlust (which has bee unmaintained for years)? If I remember
correctly, Wanderlust requires user an explicit action to verify a
signature.
On the other hand, Gnus and other major MUA automatically verify
signature without user interaction. I like this much better and
supporting your TOFU implementation would negate this this handiness.
Regards,
--
Daiki Ueno
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-07 8:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-26 6:58 epg.el: epg--status-GET_LINE not working? Teemu Likonen
2017-06-26 7:30 ` Daiki Ueno
2017-06-26 7:45 ` Teemu Likonen
2017-07-05 5:21 ` Teemu Likonen
2017-07-05 16:25 ` Daiki Ueno
2017-07-05 19:03 ` Teemu Likonen
2017-07-06 19:42 ` Neal H. Walfield
2017-07-05 23:03 ` Richard Stallman
2017-07-06 19:40 ` Neal H. Walfield
2017-07-06 19:37 ` Neal H. Walfield
2017-07-07 8:37 ` Daiki Ueno [this message]
2017-07-07 9:00 ` Neal H. Walfield
2017-07-10 8:31 ` Daiki Ueno
2017-07-10 9:06 ` Neal H. Walfield
2017-07-06 19:29 ` Neal H. Walfield
2017-07-06 20:05 ` Teemu Likonen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87lgo0bq26.fsf-ueno@gnu.org \
--to=ueno@gnu.org \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=neal@gnupg.org \
--cc=neal@walfield.org \
--cc=tlikonen@iki.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).