From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dietmar@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 622ED621D7
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:31:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5120D24ED4
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:31:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id D88BB24EC7
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:31:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9E21D43F90
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:31:09 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:30:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1007194309.79.1606120260423@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1606118041.ki3x6lhgym.astroid@nora.none>
References: <20201120163845.1225080-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
 <20201120163845.1225080-10-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
 <766783011.72.1606115268068@webmail.proxmox.com>
 <1606118041.ki3x6lhgym.astroid@nora.none>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.4-Rev13
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.115 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 09/13] paperkey: add short
 key ID to subject
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:31:43 -0000

> I originally wanted to keep the full fingerprint in, but conceded to 
> your space arguments here and only included the short version.. I also 
> don't really buy the confusion, since unless the user has manually 
> looked inside the key file they don't even know that or how the 
> fingerprint is stored there - in the user-facing parts we only ever show 
> the short key ID. furthermore we already paperkey the pretty-printed 
> version so if the user restores that the checksum of the keyfile is 
> different anyhow.

Don't get that. You delete the fingerprint, so if a user restores that key
he don't have a fingerprint to compare?