Christian --
...and then Christian Stigen Larsen said...
% I tried installing mutt and pgp5i, but I had
% some small problems using it with mutt, it
% didn't work very well since you have to use pgpk
% instead of pgp -k now.. Is tehre any "trick" with
% this ?
Mutt is pgp5-, pgp2-, and gpg-capable and knows the differences between
them; did you install pgp5 but tell mutt that it was using pgp2, perhaps?
Check out manual.txt for pgp settings and PGP-Notes.txt for general pgp
info...
%
% Also another question: Is it possible to encrypt
% an e-mail and send it to a mailinglist, having
% all the recipients being able to decrypt it ?
Theoretically, yes; you need the public key of every subscriber in your
ring and you somehow make a small note to pgp to use all of them even
though you're only sending to one list address. Practically, no, since
that collection can be pretty tough to get and it would be a pain to tell
pgp about the large bunch. A nice middle ground might be to have a bogus
public/private key pair for the list itself, where all list holders have a
copy of the private key and anyone can use the public key for encryption,
but that would soon leak beyond the list and be hardly worth the bother.
Still, it's an interesting concept... Perhaps the public keys of
each subscriber could be registered with the list management software,
which would use a much less bogus private key to decrypt (in batch mode
without human intervention -- warning! -- or *with* interaction at the
cost of the list owner's time) and then recrypt messages for posting,
so that anyone posting needs only one public key (the list's), and could
in fact not even encrypt the submission but just let the list software
encrypt the original plaintext when it broadcasts it. That's probably
a lot of work for the server, though, especailly for a large list.
Does anyone have any ideas about implementations like that?
%
%
% P.S. What's the deal with version 2.6.3i of PGP ? Why
% are a lot of people using this version instead
% of the 5 and 5.5 versions ?
My guess is inertia; it's installed and has been for years, while pgp5
perhaps isn't and definitely hasn't, and it encrypts within the message
instead of using this "new-fangled MIME stuff" (and we know how much the
average user, who doesn't understand a man page, likes to read RFCs).
%
% --
% Christian Stigen Larsen -- http://www.sublevel3.org
% [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~chrisl/
:-D
--
David Thorburn-Gundlach * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Helping out at Pfizer
http://www.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
"Why2k? Well, I didn't think at the time that I could charge any more!"
Note: If bigfoot.com gives you fits, try sector13.org in its place. *sigh*
PGP signature
