Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!hsi!cjsa!jeff From: jeff@cjsa.UUCP (C. Jeffery Small) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Crypt() in Elm - This may be a problem! Summary: This seems like a good idea Message-ID: <101@cjsa.UUCP> Date: 27 Jun 88 14:57:39 GMT References: <470@altnet.ALTOS.COM> <278@clout.Jhereg.MN.ORG> <1060@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG> Organization: C. Jeffery Small and Associates - New Haven, CT Lines: 32 In article <1060@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG>, sewilco@datapg.DataPg.MN.ORG (Scot E. Wilcoxon) writes: > In article <10291@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.nexus.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: > ... > >As far as I am concerned, if two people want to send each other encrypted > >mail they should implement their own compatable (with each others) > >crypt(1) replacement. I don't think encryption should be part of the UA. > ... > > Therefore, a [person,site],en-/decryption_routine table is needed. A mutually > agreeable decryption routine name should also be in the encryption header. I think this is a good idea. Keeping the decryption routine out of ELM will solve a lot of future problems. This external specification allows individuals or groups to agree to use a customized encryption routine for specialty purposes and allows sites without crypt(1) to request the use of a special routine by those mailing to them. I assume that Scot is suggesting something along the lines of an XCRYPT: crypt_routine_name mail header line. With this thought in mind, we might select a PD en/decryption program to package as an auxillary program with ELM and call it elmcrypt or some such. I would also suggest that in the event that no special encryption routine is specified, the default should be to use crypt(1) or issue a warning message when crypt(1) is unavailable. -- Jeffery Small (203) 776-2000 UUCP: uunet!---\ C. Jeffery Small and Associates ihnp4!--- hsi!cjsa!jeff 123 York Street, New Haven, CT 06511 hao!noao!---/