From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sascha Wilde Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: pgg-encrypt is a pain in the neck Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:54:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: <93fed91b-cb8a-4de7-9a16-62c85654bab6@well-done.deisui.org> <6662a3b9-1148-4aa0-bd2d-29a67be38d76@well-done.deisui.org> <5a520e06-4ee3-4c4f-9345-d49a666516f9@well-done.deisui.org> <7f60c21d-2f66-4c4b-9abb-e377ca24a153@well-done.deisui.org> <844cd50a-ec18-4b09-a057-35bdfb5173fd@well-done.deisui.org> <8ba25607-9381-4a27-ae53-8b0f3ccc3ac1@well-done.deisui.org> <366fa6ab-42a0-4df5-a17f-4ac3d1744d78@well-done.deisui.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1167569679 8128 80.91.229.12 (31 Dec 2006 12:54:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:54:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ueno@unixuser.org, peterb@kenny.sha-bang.de, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 31 13:54:34 2006 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 1H10Cv-0001Ed-EJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:54:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H10Cv-0001nu-0H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:54:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H10Ck-0001np-8A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:54:22 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H10Ci-0001nU-K9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:54:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H10Ci-0001nR-DU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:54:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.141.58.119] (helo=km1136.keymachine.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1H10Cg-0005L7-Oa; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:54:19 -0500 Original-Received: from kenny.sha-bang.de (xdsle185.osnanet.de [212.95.104.185]) (authenticated bits=0) by km1136.keymachine.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10) with ESMTP id kBVCsDpJ031472; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:54:13 +0100 Original-Received: from wilde by kenny.sha-bang.de with local (Kenny MUA v.0409034.42) ID 1H10Cf-00067D-5s; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:54:17 +0100 Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sat\, 30 Dec 2006 20\:47\:05 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.92 (gnu/linux) 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:64560 Archived-At: Richard Stallman wrote: > PGG is rather "low level" in context of mail encryption, but please > bear in mind, that there are other uses for GnuPG: You can encrypt > other private or confidential stuff just to keep it safe without > sending it per mail, and that's where the currently available user > functions come in handy. > > I agree, that a more generic solution might be worthwhile, but I don't > think that pgg is "broke" or needs to be "fixed" in this regard. > > There seems to be a disagreement about this. Daiki Ueno told me that > PGG could do what Mailcrypt does; I found it cannot, and you say it > isn't supposed to. I can't speak for Daiki, but as I see it PGG on its own can't but together with message mode it can, so this might be what he meant. > Your viewpoint seems to be that PGG is actually meant only for use > from other Lisp programs. Not only from other Lisp programs, but mainly, yes. > If so, I don't think it really needs to be documented on its own. I don't think that documentation for library stuff is bad, and PGG is not the only case: we have manuals for eg. Emacs MIME, URL, SMTP and Widget, too. And PGG _has_ interactive user functions which should be documented. > If PGG is currently only useful via Gnus, then I think the > documentation of gpg-agent is only needed in the Gnus manual, since > it is only relevant for Gnus. I don't think so. 1. As pointed out in my last mail: if you want to encrypt stuff independently from mail PGG _is_ useful on its own. 2. Mail encryption with PGG works in message mode, which can be used independently from Gnus and has it's own manual, too. The message mode manual already refers to the PGG manual, so I don't think any addition is needed. But if you think we should urge the users more explicit to use gpg-agent, then the message mode manual would be the right place, IMHO. > Could someone please install the text > that Daiki Ueno wrote into the Gnus manual? Please don't. See above, why not. > Meanwhile, it is unfortunate that Emacs has most of what is needed to > do the job of Mailcrypt but fails to actually deliver that > functionality to the user. I hope people will implement this, soon > after the release. I agree, and as Daiki wrote it shouldn't be to hard to do. On the other hand: maybe we should aim for merging mail mode and message mode in long terms? cheers sascha -- Sascha Wilde "Unix was the first OS where you could carry the media and system documentation around in a briefcase. This was fixed in BSD4.2."