Hi, (This thread's Other David here.)
* Kevin J. McCarthy <[email protected]>, 2015-04-06 10:34:10 Mon: > Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > Determining the applicable signatures could be... interesting when > > more than one is involved (e.g. nested forwarded signed emails with > > attachments). I wonder if the effort is worth it? > > > > On the other hand, simply printing a warning that the signature may be > > invalidated when any attachment is deleted (if the SIGN or PARTSIGN bit > > is set in the header) seems comparatively easy. The attached patch > > seems to work. > What are your feelings about just printing the warning for now? I would be quite OK with this (but that's just my egoistic opinion; after all I use the proof-of-concept, do-without-asking patch I posted and am happy with it). > While both your suggestions have merit, I think there's quite a bit > more work involved in them, and it would be a shame to let this > request languish because of that. Nothing prevents adding additional > functionality to this later. Agreed. It would be a nice start if we could get something, anything, merged. -- David Haguenauer
pgpvAlLXEyBUs.pgp
Description: Digital signature
