wk at gnupg.org
Tue Aug 14 12:08:02 CEST 2001
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:42:37 +0200, Stefan Bellon said:
>> This is not correct. The original intention was to skip all invalid
>> or unknown recipients. I am not sure whether this is really a good
> I'd love if you were right, but that's not the case, sorry. With the
> above two commands, GnuPG does behave different!
Sorry, the "not" above was not intended, don't know why my keyboard
did insert it.
I did checked that case and it is really a bug. Furthermore, GnuPG
returns in both cases with an exit code of 2 which is also wrong.
> What about encrypting to the recipients present but reporting the
> missing key in the status output?
That is how it should work (modulo status output) but I am not anymore
sure whether this is a good idea: If you want to send to Alice and
Bob but due to a missing key you did not encrypt it for Bob, you will
later have to resend the message to bob. After receiving the first
message, Alice must assume the message was only intended for her and
Werner Koch Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
g10 Code GmbH et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.
Privacy Solutions -- Augustinus
More information about the Gnupg-devel