Re: wish: enable encrytion to arbitrary number of keys
Hi Thomas,
* Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [20. Nov. 2007]:
> On 2007-11-20 17:21:11 +0100, Gregor Zattler wrote:
>
>> I second this or some other means to enable encryption to several
>> keys which have no corresponding recipent in the email headers.
>
> I wonder if your use case is doing that automatically for every
> message, or doing it interactively for a few?
>
> If the former, you could actually fiddle around with the PGP/GPG
> command line.
That's my use case and that's the way I "fixed" it first: a) have
a local Bbc: -Header and a pub key with this email address as a
user-id (otherwise mutt complains because there is no key for
this email address); and b) select pgp_encrypt_sign_command via
send2-hooks which triggers the gpg's group feature. That's a
pretty ugly hack.
> If the latter, then I'd recommend adding some UI to
> the compose menu to select additional keys.
As far as I understand mutt enforces a mapping where each and
every email address in To:, Cc: and Bcc: has to have exactly one
key associated. It then calls gpg/pgp with the key-ids of these
keys as arguments. The email addresses are not part of the
arguments to gpg and therefore it is not (easily -- see next
sentence) possible to use gpg's group configuration directive,
because it's not possible to hand arbitrary strings from mutt to
pgp/pgp.
The only possibility to use gpg's group configuration directive
in conjunction with mutt without using send2-hooks as in b) above
is to name the group exactly like the key-id of the key mentioned
under a) above. That's pretty ugly too.
A solution to this problem could be:
- crypt-hook takes more than only one argument
and/or
- crypt-hook arguments are passed to gpg without mapping to
key-ids (at least if there are not several keys corresponding
to the crypt-hook argument).
Ciao, Gregor
--
-... --- .-. . -.. ..--.. ...-.-