On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:21:11PM +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. > If crypt-hook would allow for multiple keys or would not test if > there actually is a (valid) pub key corresponding to the provided > string this also would solve the problem. > > Using a shared key for a mailing list is not the best option > because one would have to create and communicate a new key > whenever a member of the list leaves the list (and possibly also > when someone joins the list). For lists with only a few members > who know exactly who is on the list this feature would make > things much easier. > While I don't really oppose this, it seems to me that the far saner way to deal with this is for the mailing list software to allow the subscribing users to upload their public key, and to make the mailing list software decrypt and re-encrypt the message with all of the subscriber's keys. I don't think that's a problem Mutt should have to fix (and the sender shouldn't need to have everyone's keys). IOW, the sender encrypts to one key: the mailing list's public key. The list management software should do the rest. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Attachment:
pgpIzTIOyp7St.pgp
Description: PGP signature