Re: Mail encryption, possible problem with SEMI

[Kazuhiro Ito <kzhr@d1.dion.ne.jp>]

> > > > > In mime-edit-encrypt-pgp-mime a recipient list is calculated. A
> > > > > to-header like 'foo bar <foo@a.b>' is therefore parsed into three
> > > > > elements 'foo', 'bar' and 'foo@a.b', which results in three key ids
> > > > > (depending on the contents of your key ring). Unfortunately, the key
> > > > > ids resulting from 'foo' and 'bar' are unrelated to this mail in my
> > > > > case (tons of different keys can be found for foo). And even the key
> > > > > found for foo@a.b might not be the one one want to use.
> > > > 
> > > > Please try attached patch (not tested for S/MIME nor gpg's named
> > > > group).
> > > thank you for the quick response. I applied the patch and it works for
> > > me. Over the next days I will do more testing.
> > after applying the patch the message isn't encrypted additionally with
> > the sender's key anymore. This makes it impossible to read the
> > messages from your own outbox.
> I set mime-edit-pgp-encrypt-to-self now, which I never set before, and
> it seems to work again as expected.

That behavior is expected.  If your message encrypted for you when
mime-edit-pgp-encrypt-to-self is nil, it would be due to a bug as you
described.

Default value of mime-edit-pgp-encrypt-to-self is currently nil.  But
it simply inherits SEMI's default behavior and there is no strong
reason.  If you think mime-edit-pgp-encrypt-to-self's default should
be t, I will change it.  (Debian's package sets
mime-edit-pgp-encrypt-to-self to t.)

> I wonder if a lot of wl users use signing and encryption?

Unfortunately, I rarely use these features.

-- 
Kazuhiro Ito