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!---/