PGP/MIME [was Re: Balsa Encrypts messages with GnuPG!]
- From: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj stampede org>
- To: oly mail com, balsa-list gnome org, Alan O <alan hitter net>
- Cc: Brian Stafford <brian stafford office-logic com>
- Subject: PGP/MIME [was Re: Balsa Encrypts messages with GnuPG!]
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:03:15 -0500
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Oliver Oberdorf wrote:
> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:29:29 +0900
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> From: Oliver Oberdorf <email@example.com>
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sender: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Balsa Encrypts messages with GnuPG!
> With all respect,
> I don't think balsa will be free of mutt for some time. People have
> PGP support in balsa for *ages*. Others have repeatedly shot down the
> idea of using lubmutt's PGP with this argument, but /nobody/ has time to
> it this way and libmutt seems to still very much a part of balsa. Now
> someone is 90% done with the obvious approach, I see no reason to stop
He's still a long way off, he only has signatures working (and encryption?)
and only for GnuPG. (btw Werner Koch is working on a library called GpgMe
which will replace his efforts for GnuPG support).
> Plus, mutt is time-tested and I see no reason to think a from scratch
> implementation will work better. More flexible for developers; maybe.
> Better integrated with gnome PGP; obviously. Ready in 3 months or
> less; not likely.
It can be ready easily in 3 months as I've already written a full MIME
implementation (*with* PGP/MIME support even). All that needs to be done is
to integrate it into Balsa.
IMHO, PGP/MIME is the correct PGP implementation to use - inline pgp hacks
are a waste of time...sure it'd be nice to support receiving them but not
sending them. Receiving them using my library would be a sinch as well
multipart/encrypted and multipart/signed are the accepted way of doing this
and it works a lot better too.
The other concern is that there is no standard way of encrypting
attachments inline (inline in this context means non-PGP/MIME). PGP/MIME is
the only acceptable way of encrypting/signing attachments.
In the case of signing parts, why sign each attachment? that's a waste -
it's better to sign the entire email message. And *that* can only be done
Anyways, take a look at my API before you toss this idea aside, I believe
that once you see the API you'll be convinced it is THE WAY.
] [Thread Prev