On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 01:39:17PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > > Why not simply add yourself to the pgp_encrypt_sign_command and > pgp_encrypt_command? For example, I use:
Because that needs to be done on a per-user basis. > This seems like something to be handled in the muttrc, not something to > be handled by patching the source. As I said in the mail, most users sending out encrypted email expect it to be readable for themselves. Some MUAs with encryption already handle this automatically. Adding loops for users that use the default configuration (they need to understand what definitions to change and how) only makes this more difficult and, worst, unmantainable in the long term: if the gpg interface were to change or a new tool subsituted it, the Mutt maintainer would provided a new version of the Debian-provided Muttrc file, but a user with a configuration like you propose would start being unable to send encrypted e-mail and would need to revise the gpg/whatever interface to adapt it to his own needs. I can't stress enough that this is something desirable for most users as a default setting and it should be available as such. I'm already aware of workarounds, and I'm using some. The only reasoning of not accepting the patch is that it can't be disabled but, similarly, not encrypting to Bcc: (which currently gives away who you Bcc: to, as the same e-mail is encrypted for all recipients) can't either. Regards Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
