>>>>> Jonathan Dowland <j...@debian.org> writes:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:45:26PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 23, Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> wrote:
>>> Wouldn’t it make more sense for mutt to just go «oh, no GPG
>>> installed, let’s note that there are signatures here, but they
>>> can’t be verified, since there’s no GPG installed on the system»
>>> and let the user know that? No need to actually disable PGP
>>> support.
>> Yes. Because this way the default configuration will be useful both
>> before and after gnupg will have been installed.
> That is sort-of what is happening for neomutt (20171215+dfsg.1-1) at
> least, it reports
> sh: 1: gpg: not found
> There’s room for improvement there. mutt (1.9.2-1) is worse
> Error: verification failed: Unsupported protocol
> both with the default configurations.
What are the values of the crypt_use_gpgme setting in each case?
Could it be that mutt and neomutt actually have different defaults
(one using gpg(1) directly and the other using GPGME) here?
--
FSF associate member #7257 http://am-1.org/~ivan/
