Re: [Gnu-arch-users] oh the heck with it -- tla-1.2pre0

[Dustin Sallings]

On Dec 30, 2003, at 21:14, James Blackwell wrote:

> >         Encrypted storage.  I.e. I could replicate my archive to a location
> > that could mirror it for me offsite (I do this with a machine at my
> > office) without anyone being able to see the contents of the archive 
> > in
> > transit or on the system.
>
> My vote on this one is no.
>
> Encrypted storage is antithetical to arch's intended purpose. Arch
> exists to solve the problems of distributed source code revision
> systems, not to operate as a secure remote backup utility.

	That was an example where I was intending to show that the archive can 
be placed in less-trustworthy places, not where I was trying to suggest 
how I'd use it.  I have an archive that is replicated that I would 
really rather have encrypted if possible.  It's got personal stuff in 
it (letters to attorneys and what-not).

	Are you suggesting that arch should only be used when all people who 
can access the files are permitted to check them out?

	I imagine that as long as gpg is there to provide signatures but not 
encryption, there will be plenty of people wondering why encryption 
isn't available.  It's the logical next step, and it is useful for one 
of my archives right away.

	I do, of course, realize how much more simple it is to add signature 
support than changeset encryption.

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________