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. Or another alternative: a option "keycommand=<..>" to execute print the key to its stdout. But the tricky think here would be how to pass the necessary information to the keycommand so that it can decide on which key to pass on. 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/
