Re: [openpgp] Intended Recipient observation

"Neal H. Walfield" <> Fri, 16 April 2021 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05E63A2BFF for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xINGiTj2ZN9j for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB22D3A2518 for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1lXRXb-00067Q-8S; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:41:59 +0200
Received: from ([] by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1lXRXa-0000UX-OK; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:41:58 +0200
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:41:58 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: "Neal H. Walfield" <>
Cc: "openpgp" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Goj=F2?=) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Intended Recipient observation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:42:13 -0000

On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:31:01 +0200, wrote:
> On 4/16/2021 at 10:24 AM, "Neal H. Walfield" <> wrote:
>  Why would Alice want to import M's key?

In the software that I'm working on the "keyring" is simply a cache.
We aggresively harvest all keys that we encounter (storage is cheap),
and rely on our trust model to separate the wheat from the chaff.

>  Still, in order for her to Import M' as a new key by M, she would check first if M' was also signed by M.
>  If she then sees a decryption problem, she would (thanks to your pointing this out), 
>  check for duplicate subkey S in her keyring, and then find out that M does bear her ill will.

In my opinion, we should shift as little complexity as possible to the
user.  In our case, this means that Sequoia has to worry about a lot
more corner cases, such as this one, but I think it is worth it.

>  As most users are familiar with their encryption subkey's
>  fingerprint, it would be a good idea to check any prospective
>  public key for an encryption subkey fingerprint, before importing
>  it.

The user population that I'm targetting doesn't understand how to do
this nor do they want to learn about these nuances.

>  Thanks for pointing this out.
>  (Doesn't affect me though, as am from old school that doesn't use subkeys,
>  where the primary certificate signs, decrypts and authenticates).

Thanks for the feedback!

:) Neal