Re: inline vs smime encryption
* On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 C Hamel (yogich@xxxxxxxxxx) muttered:
> Having googled several times for various answers regarding encryption via
> mutt I am puzzled that the consensus seems to be that inline is outdated
> ...yet KDE uses it in its latest kmail client.
Well read the archive on discussions about inline vs. PGP/mime. It's a
long story.
> Further, though I have successfully encrypted via mutt (1)I cannot
> read the result except via kmail; (2)no copy encrypted to me is sent
> to sent-mail unless I am the recipient.
If you want the mail to be encrypted for yourself too configure gpg to do
that. encrypt-to *hint*
You should be aware of the security implications doing the above has. If
your key is compromised all encrypted mail you send will be
decipherable.
If you do not encrypt to you too you cannot read what you send. It's a
trade-off.
> What gives?
It is not mutt's job to do that?
> How can this be fixed?
see above
> I have included the following in my .muttrc file...
> # Inline encryption
> macro compose \CE "Fgpg -ea\ny"
>
> # Clearsign
> macro compose \CP "Fgpg --clearsign\ny"
Why don't you start with the provided ggp.rc and use mutt's encryption
options?
Propper headers will be added too. ;)
> I rather like the idea of auto-signing
> doesn't seem to be available via the above.
Certainly not, crypt_autosign exists for a reason.
> I have found absolutely nothing for use in .procmailrc in my searches except
> as regards the PGO rather than GnuPG encryption.
How does procmail come in now?
HTH,
Michael
--
We are Pentium of Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated.
-- seen in someone's .signature
GPG Key ID: 0xDC1A44DD