From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7 Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:37 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87zly3y4ru.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87odejy30k.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <54a15d860710311830s4fa203e3y53fbd6f51496f007@mail.gmail.com> <54a15d860711010824w6888aafdgb0a0e5d48f6fdebb@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194206222 29724 80.91.229.12 (4 Nov 2007 19:57:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 19:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: miles@gnu.org, ueno@unixuser.org, ding@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 04 20:57:04 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 1IolaY-0007z0-5J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:56:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IolaN-0000nP-OG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IolaJ-0000kI-V4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IolaJ-0000in-7G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IolaJ-0000iP-2M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:39 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IolaI-0005J3-Pw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:38 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IolaH-0005Th-Ev; Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:37 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Ted Zlatanov on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:12:00 -0500) 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:82507 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:65542 Archived-At: My arguments are in a separate message, but essentially the difference is between providing a GnuPG interface (epg) and providing an architecture with user-supplied ciphers that does not depend on GnuPG or any other external tools (encrypt.el). I just looked at encrypt.el. It appears to support just GnuPG and "Built-in simple XOR". And built-in simple XOR is just an example, not for real use. So what useful generality do we really get from this? By contrast, if Gnus uses EasyPG, I presume that gives various advantages in using GnuPG compared with the more direct use of GnuPG thru encrypt.el. Could someone confirm that that is true? All in all it looks like the best thing is to install EasyPG and make Gnus use it directly. I'm willing to change my mind if shown a real advantage of encrypt.el, but I don't see one now.