Re: Version 0.16-beta2 released

[Tom M. <tme...@vl...>]

Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Due to some feedback from Tom Metro
> (as well as some internal dialog), I've gone off the idea of having the
> external file hold all meta-information. Instead, the meta information
> will be encrypted inside the file itself...

I'm glad to hear my suggestions proved to be useful.


> 0.17 will have signing of the encrypted file...

What do you mean by that? Given that a public key is involved, aren't 
they essentially signed now?


> The only thing missing from this beta release before it can be called
> "0.16" is deleting encrypted versions of deleted plain text files when
> the file names are encrypted. This is not going to be very easy to
> implement efficiently, so it will take a little time.

Are you referring to a scenario in which you have a source directory 
with files a, b, and c. You process them through rsyncrypto and get 3 
encrypted files with encrypted file names. Then file b is deleted from 
the source directory, and rsyncrypto is called upon to process the 
directory again?

What is the problem? That it is inefficient to go through the list of 
files in the destination directory, map their file names back to the 
unencrypted names, and check to see if the source files still exist?

  -Tom


-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/