[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Crypto plugins (was: Re: Fwd: Mitarbeit?)
From:       Marc Mutz <Marc.Mutz () uni-bielefeld ! de>
Date:       2001-10-30 10:23:02
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 29 October 2001 22:06, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Monday 29 October 2001 15:48, Marc Mutz wrote:
<snip>
> I don't think a complete rewrite of kpgp is really necessary. And I
> don't think temporarily dropping the PGP2/5/6 support is necessary.
> If there isn't enough time to finish all of the above for KDE 3.0 it
> will have to wait until KDE 3.1. IMO it's as simple as this.
<snip>

Karl-Heinz' proposal to make one kpgp and one gpgme-based crypto plugin 
is a good one, IMO. What I meant originally was that if we wanted to 
unify their approach with ours, then it would mean to adopt the gpgme 
interface for kpgp and _that_, in turn would lead to a major rewrite. 
If we keep 'em separate, then PGPi users will have reduced 
functionality (e.g., they couldn't use S/MIME besides OpenPGP, even if 
they have gpgme, too.)

So, basically, we have two KMime-Crypto backend plugins (or 
Multipart::Encrypted/Signed body part plugins):
1. gpgme-based (supports gpg-OpenPGP and gpg-S/MIME)
2. kpgp-based (supports gpg and pgpi through our "old" classes)

At higher levels, we'd have
1. kpgpUI based configuration
2. aegypten based configuration.

And we'd write a perl script to move the kpgp settings to the "kgpgme" 
settings...

So users have the choice (well, at least if they use gnupg) to either 
use the kpgp-based approach, which should function as it does currently 
or to move over to the gpgme-based approach, gaining S/MIME support on 
their way.

In 3.1, we'd then try to merge pgpi support into the gpgme-based 
approach (either above gpgme or inside it) and basically use a 
gpgme-like interface as the "crypto plugin interface". (BTW: there's 
also xPG.sf.net to support, though it can emulate gnupg's command line 
interface).

What does everyone think?

Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE73pvD3oWD+L2/6DgRAoKvAKCCiwubJswSh/ttsjXBUGiTeHyU7wCguVvP
XF3Pp1XElS8aKejIWxEYwzY=
=IBhs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
kmail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]