++ 03/04/15 18:44 -0700 - Kevin J. McCarthy:
I'm cleaning up and looking into committing the multiple crypt hook patch, but need some feedback from people who use it.The current behavior (without that patch) is to prompt whether to use the crypt-hook value if one is found. If the user answers "no" then Mutt will use the original address for key selection instead. Since there can be at most one crypt-hook, this makes sense. With this patch, it's less clear what the correct behavior should be if the user user says "no". The current patch will use the original address and perform key selection with it, but doing this multiple times doesn't seem right.
I'm a heavy user of this patch. My use case is fairly simple: either it should encrypt to all of the keys that are listed in the crypt-hook, or to a subset of them or the message shouldn't be sent at all.
I have specificaly selected and configured a number of key ID's for a mailinglist. This is a deliberate action, and if a key is not available there is no need to select an alternative. Keys are always available ay my keyring. If they are not, something has gone wrong. One of the reasons the key selection still fails is when a key is available, but unusable (e.g. the key has expired). In that case I would like to have the option to either send the message encrypted to the remaining keys (the other crypt-hooks), or to cancel the sending of the message.
Anyway, that is me. :) -- Rejo ZengerE r...@zenger.nl | P +31(0)639642738 | W https://rejo.zenger.nl T @rejozenger | J r...@zenger.nl
OpenPGP 1FBF 7B37 6537 68B1 2532 A4CB 0994 0946 21DB EFD4 XMPP OTR 271A 9186 AFBC 8124 18CF 4BE2 E000 E708 F811 5ACFSignal 0507 A41B F4D6 5DB4 937D E8A1 29B6 AAA6 524F B68B 93D4 4C6E 8BAB 7C9E 17C9 FB28 03
pgp0G0Z1NvBAM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
