While you are fixing these problems, could one of you look at a problem I
reported a few weeks ago.
I have a colleague in a university in the Netherlands where he is forced to
use S/MIME. He was sending me attachments for the drafts of a paper we
were writing. He was not encrypting the email. I do not want to use
encryption. I want to delete the the attachments from the email after
saving them, but it will not let me. There is the smime.p7s signiture, and
I can not delete that either.
I received the following reply:-
----
Presumably, Mutt doesn't let you delete attachments because doing so would
render the signature invalid. If you don't care about breaking signatures,
and would rather be able to delete attachments no matter what, I have a
patch:
http://www.kurokatta.org/hacks/src/mutt-1.5.13-rmattach.patch
It was meant for PGP-encrypted messages; hopefully it works for S/MIME as
well.
David Haguenauer
----
Could you check that patch and make sure it gets into the mutt releases?
When the encryption is due to the sender, who is not even using mutt, and
not the mutt receiver, it seems obvious to me that mutt should just allow
you to delete attachments.
I am not a great C programmer, and I have only been involved with the mutt
code long ago when I contributed some chnages to the code for using
mixmaster. I have stopped using mixmaster and pgp long ago.
I would welcome your help with this.
Brian.
On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 02:40:31PM -0400, David J. Weller-Fahy wrote:
> * Dave Dodge <dodo...@dododge.net> [2015-04-04 18:30 -0400]:
> >Some formal key infrastructures managed by corporations, government
> >departments, etc. will issue you two distinct private keys, each with
> >its own X.509 certificate. One is only to be used for digital
> >signatures, and the other is only to be used for data encryption.
>
> That's exactly the situation I'm dealing with.
>
> >Last I checked (admittedly this was a couple years ago) it only let you
> >specify a single private key to be used for both signing outgoing mail
> >and decrypting incoming mail. Which is not sufficient. I had to patch
> >in some more variables.
>
> This time I was able to get it to work minimally by hard-coding some
> certificates/keys, so there were no patches needed to get it to
> minimally work. If I had to deal with multiple S/MIME certificates
> (say, a personal and work) then it would get messy quickly.
>
> See http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users&m=142825894618747 for the solution.
>
> >Unfortunately the changes I made are on a corporate network where I
> >can't share them. I don't recall it being very complicated, though.
> >The next time I get a chance I'll review the patches, and I might at
> >least be able to describe how I did it.
>
> Thanks! If you happen to get the changes out I'd appreciate a look: I'm
> going to see if I can figure out how to add a single
> "smime_default_signature_key" option, which should be sufficient to make
> things work the way I would expect.
>
> Regards,
> --
> dave [ please don't CC me ]
--
"The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog
and smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism."
-- Paul Tomblin
Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) Email: b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
