Re: pgg-encrypt is a pain in the neck

[Sascha Wilde <wilde@sha-bang.de>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
Hi Richard,

[...]
> This is not an adequate replacement for mailcrypt, not as it currently
> works.  We need to fix it now.

AFAIK pgg was never meant to be a replacement for mailcrypt on its
own.  It was included with gnus and together with it (more specific:
message mode using MML) it builds a full blown, easy to use, mail
encryption tool -- but pgg one is not capable of much more than
en-/decrypting text using a OpenPGP backend (mostly GnuPG).

> One way to fix pgg-encrypt would be to give it heuristics like the
> ones mailcrypt-encrypt uses.  Another would be to declare pgg-encrypt
> to be a "low level" interface, reliable for programs with no DWIM, and
> define a different command for users to encrypt their messages.

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.

Btw. I think one source of this problem is that we currently have two
(or more?) mail composition modes in Emacs: message mode coming from
gnus and mail mode.  I'm quite certain, that there are more features
besides encryption which are only available in one of them.
Disclaimer, this is not intended to be a flame bait.  ;-)

cheers
sascha
-- 
Sascha Wilde : VI is to EMACS as masturbation is to making love:
             : effective and always available but probably not your
             : first choice...