Hi all,
I'm new to the Mutt development, so please bear with me.
In my environment, I'm running Mutt and other software (i.e. LibreOffice) under
separate user IDs. Since mutt is storing all attachments with permissions of
0600, I got bored with the intermediate storage manipulation...
In this
Thanks for replies, so what are the principal objections against such option?
Im curious because you said it was discussed several times, which is clear
indication of interest to have such a feature.
Anyway, if anyone in future will find this thread, one can get the patch from
my "web of patche
The thread, and even older threads referenced there, is from 2007. Since then,
the security field have evolved - now we have SeLinux, Apparmor and other
techniques which are capable to provide even better security than umask(077) -
I would say that ignoring shell's umask and enforcing our own ma
Hi all,
today, after a great desperation with my PGP setup and pgp_decrypt_command, I
have noticed bug(?) in pgp.c when handling return value of
pgp_check_decryption_okay().
From the mentioned function comments, and from usage on line 564, I think we
are good for rc=-2 and above, yet on line 1
Hi all,
thank you all for this long discussion. Your security concerns are clear, as is
clearer the intended system-usage scenario (most of you have) and Mutt's role
in there.
The difference between us is basically that I prefer that the user have the
*possibility* to do it in the "wrong" way
Dear all,
recently I wrote simple howto about mutt vs. Office365, its available (along
other quirks) here: https://brmlab.cz/user/sachy/lakatux#mutt_vs_oauth2
But is there any chance for Mutt getting the mutt_oauth2.py script integrated
into the core, so no such scripting hacks are needed anymo
