> Hmm, so how did the existing patch handle encrypted parts? I thought > it just passed them to decrypt. Why now are there extra changes > required to gpg-context? Or did i miss something? It just passes them to decrypt. But there was a bug with it which I twigged to when Jeffrey mentioned that the current function is intended to decrypt an entire mime-part that is encrypted with gpg. With the current patch the first 10 chars of the encrypted text mysteriously disappear never to be seen again! I'm guessing this is because the mime parser expects them to be some sort of mime header.
Ahhahh, yes, it should be a properly formed part. Well you could add a preceeding blank line ... but I guess that will mess up the decryption/signing calculations? If it doesn't, then that may be all you need(?).
