On Sunday 08 Sep 2013 17:31:43 Erik Christiansen wrote: > 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?)
Yep, I had more than once, on machine(s) with no vim. I've never managed to learn how to use emacs, but as they say it's never tool late to learn to play the piano! :p -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
