[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7 |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:56:37 -0500 |
My arguments are in a separate message, but essentially the difference
is between providing a GnuPG interface (epg) and providing an
architecture with user-supplied ciphers that does not depend on GnuPG or
any other external tools (encrypt.el).
I just looked at encrypt.el. It appears to support just GnuPG
and "Built-in simple XOR". And built-in simple XOR is just an
example, not for real use.
So what useful generality do we really get from this?
By contrast, if Gnus uses EasyPG, I presume that gives
various advantages in using GnuPG compared with the more
direct use of GnuPG thru encrypt.el. Could someone confirm
that that is true?
All in all it looks like the best thing is to install EasyPG and make
Gnus use it directly. I'm willing to change my mind if shown a real
advantage of encrypt.el, but I don't see one now.
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Ted Zlatanov, 2007/11/01
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Daiki Ueno, 2007/11/01
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Richard Stallman, 2007/11/01
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Ted Zlatanov, 2007/11/02
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/02
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Ted Zlatanov, 2007/11/04
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Richard Stallman, 2007/11/05
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Ted Zlatanov, 2007/11/05
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Richard Stallman, 2007/11/05
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Ted Zlatanov, 2007/11/06
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Richard Stallman, 2007/11/07
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Ted Zlatanov, 2007/11/07
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Richard Stallman, 2007/11/07
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Ted Zlatanov, 2007/11/07
- Re: encrypt.el in No Gnus 0.7, Daiki Ueno, 2007/11/07