On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 02:48:56PM +0200, ilf wrote:
I have also never used "spam" before. I wonder if this feature is really correct for my use-case, which has nothing to do with spam. It might do the job, but it doesn't feel clean.
It _is_ a "creative" use of the spam command. I think if you read about the command you may agree there isn't anything particularly wrong with using it for this purpose. It just allows labeling messages in a way
that is efficient to search against.
There seem to be quite a few users with this issue. Do you think a boolean option like "crypt_verify_smime" that explicitly works even with GPGME would be feasible? From a user POV, it sure sounds logical and useful.
Yes, that may be possible although it might be better to then deprecate $crypt_verify_sig and just have the separate pgp and smime config vars (which should be quadoptions). It certainly wouldn't go in a stable release.
Also, is there a way to shorten the time that SMIME signature verification needs before timing out? 25 seconds sounds much too long to me.
I don't know what it's doing that takes so long to time out, and have no idea how to adjust that. Maybe others who use s/mime with GPGME have ideas.
-- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
