From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daiki Ueno Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: epg.el: epg--status-GET_LINE not working? Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:31:19 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87fuenqlp8.fsf@mithlond.arda> <8737a9we4a.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87lgo0bq26.fsf-ueno@gnu.org> <87wp7kvcxt.wl-neal@walfield.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1499675643 3609 195.159.176.226 (10 Jul 2017 08:34:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 08:34:03 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Teemu Likonen , "Neal H. Walfield" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Neal H. Walfield" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jul 10 10:33:52 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dUU8b-0000ED-Nk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:33:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39244 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUU8g-0003DW-P5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:33:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50477) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUU86-0003DC-Le for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:33:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUU83-0004IH-JS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:33:18 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37641) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dUU6L-0003Xw-Jj; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:31:29 -0400 Original-Received: from du-a.org ([219.94.251.20]:58184 helo=localhost.localdomain) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dUU6K-00082D-9G; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:31:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87wp7kvcxt.wl-neal@walfield.org> (Neal H. Walfield's message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2017 11:00:46 +0200") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:216391 Archived-At: "Neal H. Walfield" writes: >> 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? > > Well, emacs does not implement this feature. That's the problem. > > AFAIK, currently, KMail and GpgOL implement TOFU. The TOFU handling code used in KMail resides in GPGME, right? If so I would say TOFU hasn't got any adoption outside of the GnuPG developers. > If you have two keys that claim the same email address and aren't > cross signed, then there is a conflict. That is orthogonal to > verification. If there is a conflict and someone asks: is this > signature valid? Then the right thing to do is not to say "yes," but > to e.g. raise a warning. Again, raising a warning and prompting user with a question are different; the latter is more distracting, especially when the user is reading through a mail thread and doesn't care about signature validity. > That is orthogonal to verification. Does that mean the prompt can pop up any time when a conflict is detected? If so that's even worse than I expected. > If you don't want to support TOFU, I can't force you to. Yes, TOFU > requires a bit more support from the MUA side than the WoT, but TOFU > is much easier for users than curating the WoT. I liked the original idea, setting aside the issues in the current implementation. By the way, what about the status of this patch? https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2016-December/032283.html Regards, -- Daiki Ueno