reynt0 at cs.albany.edu
Mon Sep 22 01:34:35 CEST 2008
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, David Shaw wrote:
. . .
> 1) Take the intersection of all recipients preference lists. This rules out
> any algorithms that would be unusable by someone.
> 2) Elect a "decider". The decider is the one person whose ordered list we
> will honor the rankings for. If the user has specified a personal-*-prefs
> list, then the user is the decider. If the user has not specified a list,
> then the last recipient key is used.
> 3) Walk the decider preference list from highest ranked to lowest ranked - as
> soon as we hit an algorithm that is part of the intersection from step #1,
. . .
I'm a little confused, maybe because I'm not sure who all
"user" might refer to, or maybe :^) because my mind wants
to understand the system according to what my mind wants to
think would make sense to it. I have thought the process was:
("S" is sender; "R1", "R2", are receiver(s); "M" is message)
S has basic ordered acceptance list as Ps; as does each R as
Pr1, Pr2, and so on. S maybe has personal-*-prefs list as
Pps; each R maybe does, Ppr1, Ppr2, etc. The cipher used
for M is chosen by: 1st find simple intersection of the
ciphers listed in all the various P, this gives an unordered
set. 2nd, from the ciphers in that intersection set, choose
whichever ranks highest in Pps, if there is a Pps; otherwise
choose whichever shows up first in Ps; and in any case
ignoring all the Ppr1, Ppr2, etc and any ordering in the
Pr1, Pr2, etc.
Is this wrong?
More information about the Gnupg-users