On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:50:14 -0500, Stephen R Laniel wrote: >On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:46:50AM +0000, Magnus Therning wrote: >> All MUAs I've tried will send a single email, possibly encrypting it for >> multiple recipients. This doesn't allow sending encrypted to some and >> in the clear to some. > >What threat are you trying to combat? If anyone is reading your mail as >it goes over the wire, they'll just look at the unencrypted copy. >They'll know that the unencrypted copy is the same message as the >encrypted one, because it has the same headers. This came up at work, and the commercial pgp supports it. AFAIU it does it by inserting itself between the MUA and the MTA. The use we might put it to is sending an un-encrypted copy internally, e.g. for archiving purposes. Yes, it'd be possible to create a key for that purpose as well, but then treating that key becomes an issue. To make sure we live up to all laws and regulations it's just so much easier if we could mix encrypted and un-encrypted sending. I'm also assuming that it's possible to find out what private keys can decrypt a message. In that case it would also be interesting to split up the sending of a message so that people on the To: line don't find out who was Bcc:ed. >I don't know of any MUAs that support this out of the box, because it's >not particularly useful. I'm sure mutt could be hacked to make it >happen, though; mutt can be hacked to make anything happen. LOL, how true! /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus@therning.org Jabber: magnus.therning@gmail.com http://therning.org/magnus
Attachment:
pgp3JoAb_T5cv.pgp
Description: PGP signature