On 2018-06-11 05:53:21 -0700, Claus Assmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, Bertram Scharpf wrote: > > > It was about encryption: If I write a > > message, then encrypt it for the recipient and keep just the > > encrypted copy, I will later not be able to read what I > > wrote myself. I suggested an option that added myself to the > > recipients list when calling GnuPG or OpenSSL. > > What's wrong with doing that? > > gpg: > --encrypt-to name > Same as --recipient but this one is intended for use in the > options file and may be used with your own user-id as an > "encrypt-to-self". These keys are only used when there are other > recipients given either by use of --recipient or by the asked > user id. No trust checking is performed for these user ids and > even disabled keys can be used.
Have you read what Bertram Scharpf wrote in his 2009 message? > > should configure GnuPG to do what I want. In plain language: > > "Don't duplicate functionality" As Bertram Scharpf explained, this is not. > Maybe if you explain why you need this option in mutt it would help... He did. But I assume that the new option does what he wants to do. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
