summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tickets/cb75a21b4a874f86ba49e06ae8d887fc/Maildir/new/1466584205.M512232P27811Q1.hrun
blob: e4c041f6bc90af0216fa567cfdddcd4839703162 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Return-Path: <obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org>
X-Original-To: distix@pieni.net
Delivered-To: distix@pieni.net
Received: from bagpuss.pepperfish.net (bagpuss.pepperfish.net [148.251.8.16])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pieni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFFF822FC5
	for <distix@pieni.net>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:29:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from platypus.pepperfish.net (unknown [10.112.100.20])
	by bagpuss.pepperfish.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFA23E0;
	Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:29:49 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ip6-localhost ([::1] helo=platypus.pepperfish.net)
	by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian))
	id 1bFdXh-0000Kd-8y; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:29:49 +0100
Received: from inmail0 ([10.112.100.10] helo=mx0.pepperfish.net)
 by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian))
 id 1bFdXg-0000KU-Hv; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:29:48 +0100
Received: from antipoul.fr ([82.236.122.228])
 by mx0.pepperfish.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256)
 (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <adrien@antipoul.fr>)
 id 1bFdXe-0006Lh-Ey; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:29:48 +0100
Received: from mechadrien.d203.gls-france.com (antipoul.fr
 [IPv6:2a01:e35:2ec7:ae40::2])
 by antipoul.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F359E601CE;
 Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:29:27 +0200 (CEST)
X-Warning: Your email may have been intercepted by French government. Please
 use its content with care.
To: obnam-support@obnam.org, obnam-dev@obnam.org
References: <20160619083904.GA18768@orbis-terrarum.net>
 <bfb55cce-243c-2d4a-4dfe-3600fed3237a@antipoul.fr>
 <robbat2-20160621T214546-798847087Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
From: Adrien CLERC <adrien@antipoul.fr>
Message-ID: <c46456fb-ac1d-709b-3ee6-c24ea60f97b0@antipoul.fr>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:29:21 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <robbat2-20160621T214546-798847087Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -3.4
X-Spam-Score-int: -33
X-Spam-Bar: ---
X-Scanned-By: pepperfish.net, Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:29:48 +0100
X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-3.4 points)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 0.4 PPF_WINDOWS_CHARSET    Content-Type is in a Windows-* charset
 -0.5 PPF_USER_AGENT         User-Agent: exists
 -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 -1.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
X-ACL-Warn: message may be spam
X-Scan-Signature: 11e4c38c8ca4deb9e992fad241274745
Subject: Re: [1/2] GPG & performance: a deep-dive
X-BeenThere: obnam-dev@obnam.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Obnam development discussions <obnam-dev-obnam.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org>,
 <mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/obnam-dev-obnam.org>
List-Post: <mailto:obnam-dev@obnam.org>
List-Help: <mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org>,
 <mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org
Errors-To: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org

Le 22/06/2016 à 00:43, Robin H. Johnson a écrit :
> Example variations:
> 1. Pure GPG (present state)
> 2. GPG for asymmetric, PyCrypto/Cryptography.io/PyNaCl for symmetric
> 3. Pure PyCrypto/Cryptography.io/PyNaCl
> 4. Upgrade path variations - Read ANY, write Y
This seems a good thinking. I also think that #2 is a good option for
migration and compatibility (for some reasons, people might trust one
piece of software and not another one).

Adrien

_______________________________________________
obnam-dev mailing list
obnam-dev@obnam.org
http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org