On 08.09.13 20:14, Tim Gray wrote: > On Sep 09, 2013 at 02:31 AM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: > >That would remove the editor choice restriction, and so would be more > >universal once it exits. Added to that, draft encryption integrated > >into mutt uses less keystrokes and requires less user concentration than > >encryption provided by the editor. > > I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I can say this. I was playing > around with encryption recently and tried out encrypting a mutt draft in > Vim. You encrypt it, then save the file, and once you are back in mutt, > postpone the message. It worked fine, as long as you are ok with all the > mail headers being encrypted and thus inaccessible to mutt when you recall > the draft.
To have an unencrypted subject line, it's necessary to enter it in mutt, prior to postponing. However, that's probably an asset if the subject ought also be obfuscated, E.g. "We go to war tomorrow" might be safer as "Immediate plans". If encryption were provided in mutt, the same could be done. > I have no idea how offlineimap or isync would have dealt with > the file, since it certainly wasn't in the right format for an email > message. Would the "postponed" mail folder ever be placed remotely, when security is the primary concern? (I don't use either of those, so my understanding of them is limited.) Erik -- Life is complex: it has a real part and an imaginary part. - Martin Terma
