On 10/2/14 1:47 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I looked at this briefly, and was surprised that there is no support for
> signing a message without encrypting it. Is that intentional? Instead of
> adding a function to encrypt and sign a message, I would have expected
> this to just add a new function for signing, and you could then pass it
> an already-encrypted blob, or plaintext.
Yes, that's intentional. The signatures are part of the encrypted data
here, so you can't look at a message and determine who sent it.
There was brief discussion about this upthread (though no one probably
added any links to those discussions into the commit fest app), and I
still think that both types of signing would probably be valuable. But
this patch is already quite big, and I really have no desire to work on
this "sign anything" functionality. The pieces are there, though, so if
someone wants to do it, I don't see why they couldn't.
.marko
