15

encryption is a fine thing, no question. But I want to keep others from reading my email, not myself!

Situation: the public/private key technology makes it possible for me to encrypt an email with a public key without being able to read the encrypted result with the same public key I used to encrypt it. This is great as this principle provides the most secure encryption there is on the planet.

Problem: However, when I sent an email I from time to time want to re-read what I have written, but this is impossible is KMail saves the encrypted email instead of the - written by me - non-encrypted 'source' text of the email. Saving the encrypted email makes no sense at all.

Solution: there should be an option to at least tell KMail to store even an encrypted email as plain 'source' text in the local folder, like it does with any non-encrypted email.

I figure that the problem comes from the fact that the 'sent messages' folder stores emails that were actually sent. But then this issue must be solved. I repeat: it makes no sense to me to save encrypted emails that by principle I will not be able to read any time in my life.

http://userbase.kde.org/KMail/FAQs_Hint ... nencrypted

Bear in mind, too, that when you set up encryption you are warned in kmail as to what you must do if you want to be able to read your saved copy.

ok, the hint on userbase.kde works with mime-encryption only, not openpgp.

and anyway: this way is much too complicated. My proposal is the only way that makes sense using encryption. what do i need emails for that are encrypted in with a key i cannot read? this makes no sense at all, i can straight away delete them also.

i do not want to change config files or want to be warned in that case, i just want to not being bothered with dramatically unlogical behaviour of kmail, and i'm sure i am not alone with that as the proposal and the acclamation will show.

incredion wrote:ok, the hint on userbase.kde works with mime-encryption only, not openpgp.

Strange that you should think that, as I've used it with openpgp for years.

and anyway: this way is much too complicated. My proposal is the only way that makes sense using encryption. what do i need emails for that are encrypted in with a key i cannot read? this makes no sense at all, i can straight away delete them also.

If you are encrypting it with a key that you cannot read you must indeed be doing something extremely strange.

i do not want to change config files or want to be warned in that case, i just want to not being bothered with dramatically unlogical behaviour of kmail, and i'm sure i am not alone with that as the proposal and the acclamation will show.

There is nothing illogical about it. Either you want encryption and are prepared to make an effort to enable it, or you don't want it enough. It is not a kmail issue. You would have to make the same amount of effort to set up enigmail or any other mail client's encryption.

The pages on userbase that deal with gpg mail encryption are

http://userbase.kde.org/KGpg
http://userbase.kde.org/KMail/gpg
http://userbase.kde.org/KMail/Security
http://userbase.kde.org/KMail/PGP_MIME

Correcting myself:

annew wrote:

incredion wrote:ok, the hint on userbase.kde works with mime-encryption only, not openpgp.

Strange that you should think that, as I've used it with openpgp for years.

On checking, no, I haven't used it with openpgp for years. I've used opengpg for years, and have upwards of 5000 encrypted messages stored. I can read every one of them, because I set up my keys as instructed, using the hints from kmail encryption setup in conjunction with Fajar's instructions that are on userbase.


[quote]and anyway: this way is much too complicated. {/quote]

You are being asked to add one line into a text file, and that's too complicated? There's no answer to that.

annew wrote:

incredion wrote:ok, the hint on userbase.kde works with mime-encryption only, not openpgp.

Strange that you should think that, as I've used it with openpgp for years.

Lady, I do not think that, on the KDE Site you linked to me this is written.

and anyway: this way is much too complicated. My proposal is the only way that makes sense using encryption. what do i need emails for that are encrypted in with a key i cannot read? this makes no sense at all, i can straight away delete them also.

If you are encrypting it with a key that you cannot read you must indeed be doing something extremely strange.

I write something to a guy who's public key I have. He can read this with his private key, that I (strange?) don't have. How strange.

i do not want to change config files or want to be warned in that case, i just want to not being bothered with dramatically unlogical behaviour of kmail, and i'm sure i am not alone with that as the proposal and the acclamation will show.

There is nothing illogical about it. Either you want encryption and are prepared to make an effort to enable it, or you don't want it enough.

Ok, effort is install encryption and one click to engage it. More is too much.

It is not a kmail issue. You would have to make the same amount of effort to set up enigmail or any other mail client's encryption.

Believe me I do not have Linux, because I shy from effort. But sometimes I just want to *use* the software. If Linux has the interest in becoming a larger spread system, such things should be easier than in MacOS or Windows. Then people will use it.

The pages on userbase that deal with gpg mail encryption are

http://userbase.kde.org/KGpg
http://userbase.kde.org/KMail/gpg
http://userbase.kde.org/KMail/Security
http://userbase.kde.org/KMail/PGP_MIME

Tx.

If you are encrypting it with a key that you cannot read you must indeed be doing something extremely strange.

I write something to a guy who's public key I have. He can read this with his private key, that I (strange?) don't have. How strange.

Hah! now it's clear where the problem is. You have totally misunderstood encryption. When your encryption is set up correctly it uses the public key of your friend and your own private key, in conjunction. It sounds as though you are trying to only use his public key. Have you created a key-set for yourself?

annew wrote:

If you are encrypting it with a key that you cannot read you must indeed be doing something extremely strange.

I write something to a guy who's public key I have. He can read this with his private key, that I (strange?) don't have. How strange.

Hah! now it's clear where the problem is. You have totally misunderstood encryption. When your encryption is set up correctly it uses the public key of your friend and your own private key, in conjunction. It sounds as though you are trying to only use his public key. Have you created a key-set for yourself?

Ok let's figure this out. I am not sure if I have misunderstood encryption, but nobody is so brilliant that there might not be something to improve.

I heard that before that I should encrypt an email with my own key... but for god's sake: WHY?

The idea of also encrypting it with your own public key is to have the option of getting to the clear text (unencrypted form) later on again without compromising on the secrecy the encryption was intially used for.

Bascially the common use case for encryption is to transmit data to a second party without allowing any third party to see it at the time of transmission and at any later time.

To be of any use to the second party it has to be ecrypted in a way the second party can decrypt it.
If the first party might want to check the secret data at a later time, it can encrypt it in a way itself can decrypt.

The use case of sharing something in private to publish it shortly afterwards, e.g. simultanious publishing on different media, thus only needing encryption for the transmission itself, is usually not that common.