Hi Erik! On So, 08 Sep 2013, Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 07.09.13 14:40, Christian Brabandt wrote: > > > No. Just because mutt encrypts for transmission does not obligate it to > > > encrypt other files which might or might not later be transmitted. > > > This is where you are conflating two separate tasks. > > > > Yes it does, since mutt manages a mail store. Just because the mail ends > > up saved locally, doesn't mean it always will and only mutt knows, > > whether the mail will be send or postponed or moved to trash or similar. > > As described above, and in other posts on this thread, I'm only > suggesting that vim provide encryption of drafts, leaving mutt to do all > that it can, including making it entirely unnecessary for the editor to > know the location of the tmp file, no matter where it is. (I hope that > red herring is dead now.) Mutt's post/postpone dialog remains, but when > using an editor for non-integrated draft encryption, we need to _also_ > communicate that decision before leaving the editor, because mutt can't > do the job afterwards. > > OK, mutt is demonstrably not obligated to edit drafts, and it cannot > currently encrypt them, but at least one editor can. Giving mutt the > ability would be easier to drive, so must be a better long term solution. > If mutt is now deemed to be obligated to do it, then it will doubtless > happen soon. Vim certainly could and Emacs probably can encrypt. But what about Nano, pico, mcedit, gedit, kate? Therefore, I think, it is still mutt's responsibility to encrypt the file. regards, Christian -- Life is a yo-yo, and mankind ties knots in the string.
