I received this private reply from you that doesn't look right and ignores the encrypted message in the same email. On 1/27/22, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/23/22, k <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Receiving an encrypted message doesn't indicate the sender is the same person who encrypted previous messages at all
If sender included a context proof, a psk, or a chain inside each subsequent msg for the receiver it would.
or that the message was even made in one unit by one person
A good decrypt seems to be one "unit", and no tool can prove what was behind the senders "unit", could be duress or hack.
others could also encrypt a hash tto this key, since it's public.
Yes it's silly, yet who knows what their model might be.
This is maybe the part that looks most wrong. What are you talking abour?
Curious what norms exist for using signify/minisgn. Seems formats are kind of left up to the user.
What usage exist? OpenBSD uses it. Search signify / minisign for more.
By this I meant, how do I send you a signed message?