Volker -- ...and then Volker Moell said... % % David T-G wrote: % > % > *This* question has started coming up relatively recently, and before now % > it hasn't been a concern. % % I thought I read about the whole "Problems with PGP mails from Outlook" % more often in the last months.
Right. I can't pin it down, but in this case I define "recently" as six
months or so.
%
%
% > Whoa -- when did we jump to traditional style from macros? These
% > macros simply let you verify *one* sig, be it traditional or not, but
% > usually not spend the time on doing so for all messages. Macros are
% > no longer (in 1.3.x where x=>20 at least) necessary for traditional
% > verification.
%
% I meant the whole old-style handling, not this point in special.
Hokay. As below, I just wanted to make sure of what we were discussing.
I've changed the subject line to help :-)
%
% The main thing which bothers me: I get very often old-style signed/
% encrypted mails. Every time when I open such a mail I have to press
Sure.
% Esc-P per default, which is annoing in my eyes. I would like to have
% this to be done automatically like in the new-style. The common answers
You realize what you're asking, right? With PGP/MIME, mutt simply has to
look at the headers to see what it must do, and that's already done, and
it's pretty resistant to problems. With inline signing, mutt now has to
look at the body for these magic strings (which used to be the only way
to recognize a PGP message, since there *wasn't* any MIME yet) and then
turn things around to pull out the parts to validate and so on. It's an
entirely different place to look and it's subject to false positives --
or, should I say, more subject than PGP/MIME.
Now, we clearly see that it's not impossible; that's what esc-P does for
us. It could cause problems, though, if it were the default behavior,
and it would mean reading every mail body for parsing as well. [Is that
more expensive in an mbox file? I dunno; I'm not a programmer.]
% about this problem is "write a macro". Because a message-hook fails
% (resp. failed the last time I tried it, there was an endless loop), I
% have to write lots of macros (for every possible key I can enter this
Yeah; it would be nice to be able to bind multiple keys to a single macro
that's smart enough to do some checking and fire off the right function
(reply, mail, forward). Someday :-)
% mail). It would be so much easier for everyone if check-traditional-pgp
% would become a variable ("set always-check-traditional-pgp=yes"), so
% that every mail will be checked automatically on demand (instead of
% handling 50% of all mail accesses via macros and doing some terrible
% workarounds for the other 50%).
Hmmm...
%
% (The other problems when *writing* old-style PGP mails probably do not
% exist anymore. I didn't had the time to test the patches announce here
% in the last weeks.)
Understood. I think that all is well but I'm still working on my patch
cocktail for .27 and won't have a use for force_traditional anyway (since
I don't use 8-bit chars; I'm a boring American).
%
%
% > All you have to do is hit esc-P and it's all there, AIUI, so either build
% > esc-P into your macro, folder-hook an esc-P on all messages when you
% > enter,
%
% Concerning the single Esc-P (or another bounded key): It's (clearly)
% intricately.
You've lost me here. Is it just me, or did you not complete your
thought?
%
% Concerning folder-hook: This may a long time on large folders, so it's
% not really good for me.
Certainly something to consider. I wonder how much of a problem it will
be, though?
[zero] [1:16pm] ~> cat /tmp/muttrc
folder-hook . 'push
"<tag-pattern>.<enter><tag-prefix><check-traditional-pgp><tag-prefix><tag-entry>"'
folder-hook . 'push "<exit>"'
[zero] [1:17pm] ~> frm -n =F.funnies | tail -1 ; ls -lF Mail/F.funnies
1009: LABLaughs Admin LABLaughsAdult - January 25, 2002
-rw------- 1 davidtg 23642536 Jan 25 13:16 Mail/F.funnies
[zero] [1:17pm] ~> time mutt -F /tmp/muttrc -f =F.funnies
...
1.020u 0.480s 0:06.10 24.5% 0+0k 0+0io 881pf+0w
[zero] [1:18pm] ~> vi /tmp/muttrc
(comment out the push line)
[zero] [1:18pm] ~> time mutt -F /tmp/muttrc -f =F.funnies
...
0.960u 0.370s 0:06.51 20.4% 0+0k 0+0io 881pf+0w
That's interesting... It took longer by the clock to *not* check a
thousand messages for traditional pgp :-) As you can see, though, it's
not that much of an impact. I should think that you wouldn't notice the
checking even on a large folder -- where you will, no doubt, have had to
wait for a while for the loading.
%
% Concerning macros: There are so many ways you can "enter" a mail that
% it's hard to detect them all; and (AFAIK) not all work with macros.
I can't answer your latter point, since I haven't seen any examples of
failure, but I agree that the current limitations mean lots of very
similar macros. It's all we have for now, though.
%
% The only good thing I see is to make a message-hook. But (kill me if
% it's wrong) it seems not to work with it. *If* it's wrong: Forgive me
% and tell me the answer. I asked a month ago, but I found no satisfying
% answer.
I haven't written any message-hooks yet myself so I'm sorry to report
that I can't provide any input.
%
% The most perfect way in my eyes is a $always-check-traditional-pgp
% variable.
Fair enough; to each his own. I don't think I'd mind having such a
variable, either, since I could leave it off.
%
%
% > or use procmail to "adjust" the message at delivery time so that
% > it looks like MIME. There's no need for another setting and for mutt to
% > have to parse every message in case it *might* be signed in the body.
%
% Personally I don't like it to modify my mails (e.g. with procmail). In
% the worst case the mails become corrupted and no more readable at all.
% Apart from this I see no reason for modifying, the MUA can handle it.
I agree with the former statement and will politely not approach the
latter. Forcibly resetting the MIME headers can lead to problems and
isn't really the best answer. It worked, and generally worked well, when
mutt couldn't handle old-style PGP mail; now that it can, it's better
than mangling. In fact, reminded by this, I've just commented all of the
PGP stuff out of my $PMDIR/rc.reformat file :-)
%
% > % Please don't write: There is no patch for this, write one. I don't have
% > Of course I wonldn't write that; I'd use a semicolon instead of a
% > comma ;-)
%
% Ok, in *this* case... :-)
*grin*
%
% > Unless I've misunderstood (and need correction), you've mixed two
% > different items: traditional checking (accomplished via esc-P) and
% > on-demand verifying (accomplished through various macros). Can you
% > confirm or deny?
%
% Indeed I must confirm you. Sorry! The problem is clearly the *checking*
% not the *verifying* (this is done correctly after the manual checking).
Good enough. Now that we're back on track again, perhaps others will
have a better idea than tagging all messages in a folder.
%
%
% Greets,
%
% -volker
%
% --
% http://die-Moells.de/ * http://Stama90.de/ * http://ScriptDale.de/
%
% You think Ödipus had a problem -- Adam was Eve's mother.
:-D
--
David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg23791/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
