[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: epg.el: epg--status-GET_LINE not working?
From: |
Neal H. Walfield |
Subject: |
Re: epg.el: epg--status-GET_LINE not working? |
Date: |
Thu, 06 Jul 2017 21:37:41 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/24.5 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) |
At Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:30:00 +0200,
Daiki Ueno wrote:
> Teemu Likonen <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > I have been thinking of fixing epg.el bug #24350
> > <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=24350>.
>
> I had a tentative patch for this, but I decided not to include it.
>
> At that time, the GnuPG developers didn't seem to have a consensus on
> how TOFU is supposed to work:
FWIW, the TOFU modus operandi are unlikely to change at this stage and
have been stable for nearly a year.
> Neal suggested it should be triggered by a
> key, while Werner suggested that it should be triggered by an email
> address.
>
> I am on Werner's side, and if the things are implemented in that way, we
> don't need to handle the conflicts in such lower level (but in the MUA
> level).
My recollection is that you said: if a recipient is specified by key
id rather than by email address (e.g., gpg is called like: 'gpg -e -r
KEYID') and the key has a conflict, the conflict should be ignored.
You justified this based on the observation that the caller knows what
is going on.
1. I disagree that this is the right behavior.
2. AFAIK, there is no precedence for this behavior in gpg. Consider
an expired or revoked key: if you try to use it, gpg will error out
with "unusable public key."