On 08.09.13 14:59, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> Vim certainly could and Emacs probably can encrypt. But what about Nano,
> pico, mcedit, gedit, kate? Therefore, I think, it is still mutt's
> responsibility to encrypt the file.
G'day Christian,
That would remove the editor choice restriction, and so would be more
universal once it exits. Added to that, draft encryption integrated
into mutt uses less keystrokes and requires less user concentration than
encryption provided by the editor.
It would however, be necessary for mutt to interpose encryption in the
datapath to the tmp file, not the "postponed" file, or the security risk
would remain, if intermittently. Since plaintext can only be permitted
within the editor and at the mutt-editor interface, I still think that
the issue of "responsibility to encrypt" could go either way. (I'm having
trouble imagining a gpg user editing with nano. Is there a mutt user who
does, I wonder?)
Erik
--
Wizards had always known that the act of observation changed the thing that
was observed, and sometimes forgot that it also changed the observer too.
Terry Pratchett - Interesting times
