encrypt also to "myself": (was: My patch was not accepted in 2009)

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2018-06-11 05:53:21 -0700, Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
> 
> >  It was about encryption: If I write a
> > message, then encrypt it for the recipient and keep just the
> > encrypted copy, I will later not be able to read what I
> > wrote myself. I suggested an option that added myself to the
> > recipients list when calling GnuPG or OpenSSL.
> 
> What's wrong with doing that?
> 
> gpg:
>        --encrypt-to name
>               Same as --recipient but this one is intended for use in the
>               options file and may be used with your own user-id as an
>               "encrypt-to-self". These keys are only used when there are other
>               recipients given either by use of --recipient or by the asked
>               user id.  No trust checking is performed for these user ids and
>               even disabled keys can be used.

Have you read what Bertram Scharpf wrote in his 2009 message?

> > should configure GnuPG to do what I want. In plain language:
> 
> "Don't duplicate functionality"

As Bertram Scharpf explained, this is not.

> Maybe if you explain why you need this option in mutt it would help...

He did. But I assume that the new option does what he wants to do.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent at vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)