On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:43:28AM -0700, s. keeling wrote: > Incoming from Florian Lohoff: > > > > i am a long time mutt and gpg user but still the gpg integration is > > kind of lacking. > > So says you. :-) > > > - I'd like to define recipients including their gpg key id to use. > > That makes no sense to me. If you're sending to multiple recipients, > which key is common to them all? You'd need to send a separate > message to each of them signed with their specific key.
You dont need a common key - The real cipher for the plain mail is
a symmetric one which gets attached to the mail encrypted with the
gpg keys. Typically with a single recipient the key is attached at
least twice - Once encrypted with the real recipient, and once
encrypted with your own key. Otherwise you wouldnt be able to
read the mails put into your sent folder anymore.
There is no limit on the number of recipients that i am aware of, there
is a limit which might be sensible to use though as the mail would
then contain the symmetric key for every recipient which in my case
adds ~500byte per recipient (As for an AES symmetric key and a
4096 bit RSA key).
Please try:
echo This is my content >test
gpg -r Bob -r Alice -e test
You will get a test.gpg which well be readable by Bob and Alices key.
mutt supports this today - you can add multiple recipients and say
"p b" or at least "p e" and it'll ask for all recipient keys.
I'd like to preset this and let mutt automatically detect whether
all recipients are actually "gpg enabled" and only then encrypt
and sign (sign only otherwise)
> I think you'd be better off _signing_ the mail with your key. You
> don't need to involve their keys at all for that.
Aeh!?! I am talking about encrypting large parts of my communication
e.g. certain recipients by default, always if all recipients do have a
key. And yes - _all_ my mails are signed for more than 10 Years - thats
not the problem.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
