diff --git a/doc/bugs/feature_request:_pubkey-only_encryption_mode.mdwn b/doc/bugs/feature_request:_pubkey-only_encryption_mode.mdwn
index af05993d4c..ff2fe7fae2 100644
--- a/doc/bugs/feature_request:_pubkey-only_encryption_mode.mdwn
+++ b/doc/bugs/feature_request:_pubkey-only_encryption_mode.mdwn
@@ -2,3 +2,5 @@
 It is not possible to put encrypted content in place on remotes with just a public GPG key. You always need the private key, even for encryption. I guess this is because how the cipher HMAC is used for replacing file names with their hashes. However, if that requirement (having secret file names) was dropped, I assume a pubkey-only mode could be implemented?
 
 My specific use case is backup archiving. I have my backups packed in archive files and want to use git-annex to copy the archives to offsite remotes (S3). In that case, I don't care much about hiding file names, but would appreciate the increased security of not having the secret key on the backup server. It would only be needed if I wanted to verify or restore backups.
+
+> [[closed|done]] per my comment --[[Joey]]
diff --git a/doc/bugs/feature_request:_pubkey-only_encryption_mode/comment_1_684d36c06429306be68fd60019564db3._comment b/doc/bugs/feature_request:_pubkey-only_encryption_mode/comment_1_684d36c06429306be68fd60019564db3._comment
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..0e2f5e3ba6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/bugs/feature_request:_pubkey-only_encryption_mode/comment_1_684d36c06429306be68fd60019564db3._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 1"""
+ date="2015-03-31T19:37:20Z"
+ content="""
+When you use encryption=pubkey, the symmetric key that is used for
+HMAC encryption of filenames is encrypted using your gpg private key.
+The contents of files are also encrypted using your gpg private key
+(not using the symmetric key; that mode is encryption=hybrid).
+
+So, with encryption=pubkey, all that can be done with that symmetric key is
+to HMAC encrypt filenames and try to find results that match the HMACed
+filenames used on the remote. So, if you don't care about filenames
+leaking, you could publish that symmetric key with no bad effects. Its
+security is not important to you based on what you've said.
+
+But again, that symmetric key is encrypted with your gpg private key.
+The only way to decrypt it would be to break your gpg key somehow. In which
+case you have big problems. But not ones caused by the existence of the
+symmetric key.
+
+So, I see no benefit to the suggested mode.
+"""]]