markus reichelt wrote: > * Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> But that doesn't mean that that isn't a WORKAROUND for something >> that should happen in the first place. > > ... > > Maybe you are just asking for one more -o keyword without realising > it. > > 'key=<file>' which expects a plain keyfile, just like 'gpgkey=<file>' > expects a .gpg > > Would be my choice instead of messing around with .gpg handling. It > just doesn't make any sense at all to have a passwordless .gpg --- > Thinking along these lines... Imagine some plain text embedded into a > word document and trying to tune a converter to get your hands on the > text instead of using a plain textfile in the first place. That would also be a solution for my problem. Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. - Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/
