From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7 Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:49:36 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: References: <87zly3y4ru.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87odejy30k.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <54a15d860710311830s4fa203e3y53fbd6f51496f007@mail.gmail.com> <54a15d860711010824w6888aafdgb0a0e5d48f6fdebb@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194227398 17867 80.91.229.12 (5 Nov 2007 01:49:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 01:49:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: miles@gnu.org, ueno@unixuser.org, ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 05 02:50:00 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ior6F-0005QK-UN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:50:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ior65-0006Xd-EM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:49:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ior62-0006Vi-LN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:49:46 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ior62-0006UP-3d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:49:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ior61-0006UF-Ot for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:49:45 -0500 Original-Received: from blockstar.com ([170.224.69.95] helo=mail.blockstar.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ior5v-0001rR-4P; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:49:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mungo.local (c-67-186-103-18.hsd1.il.comcast.net [67.186.103.18]) by mail.blockstar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E123F853F; Sun, 4 Nov 2007 18:11:02 -0800 (PST) X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Followup-To: rms@gnu.org, ueno@unixuser.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, ding@gnus.org, miles@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:37 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/22.1.50 (darwin) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:82534 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:65552 Archived-At: On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:37 -0500 Richard Stallman wrote: RS> My arguments are in a separate message, but essentially the difference RS> is between providing a GnuPG interface (epg) and providing an RS> architecture with user-supplied ciphers that does not depend on GnuPG or RS> any other external tools (encrypt.el). RS> I just looked at encrypt.el. It appears to support just GnuPG RS> and "Built-in simple XOR". And built-in simple XOR is just an RS> example, not for real use. The idea is to allow users to supply their own ciphers, and to support other external utilities as users find it necessary. I have not had the time to write more ciphers. RS> So what useful generality do we really get from this? 1) users don't have to install GnuPG to use simple obfuscation ciphers (yes, this is sometimes useful). 2) users can be creative and experiment with ciphers in Emacs Lisp, and share them with others without modifying GnuPG. 3) other external utilities can be supported. As an example of a nice use of multiple utilities, spam.el in the Gnus package supports a wide array of anti-spam tools (including built-in Lisp); because it's easy to write a backend for spam.el, users have contributed many (at least 4). 4) ciphers, being Emacs Lisp code, can do almost anything: SSH to a remote machine, use BBDB, use IMAP, use version control... There's just no limit to what users can create within the encrypt.el API, which is intentionally simple and non-invasive. GnuPG can not match that flexibility. RS> By contrast, if Gnus uses EasyPG, I presume that gives RS> various advantages in using GnuPG compared with the more RS> direct use of GnuPG thru encrypt.el. Could someone confirm RS> that that is true? It's not an A or B choice. Both EasyPG and encrypt.el can be installed and supported. They are different libraries with different purposes. One is a GnuPG interface, the other is a generic API. At least within Gnus I see no problem with using both. Also, encrypt.el can use EasyPG for GnuPG work, if that's necessary (and I think it's a good idea). RS> All in all it looks like the best thing is to install EasyPG and make RS> Gnus use it directly. I'm willing to change my mind if shown a real RS> advantage of encrypt.el, but I don't see one now. I've explained this over and over. I hope you will see the advantages after all the explanations I've written. If you need an example of a more complicated and more creative Lisp cipher, I'll write one. I do hope the idea of giving the users creative freedom appeals to you. Ted