On Fri 2019-05-24 16:09:38 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Thu 2019-05-23 07:50:43 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
>> Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> writes:
>>>      headers:        headers,
>>> +    crypto?:        crypto,   # omitted if crypto disabled, or if no part 
>>> was signed or encrypted.
>>>      body?:          [part]    # omitted if --body=false
>>>  }
>> I'm wondering about the "upward compatible" aspect of this. If the
>> crypto key is ommitted, a client doesn't know whether to interpret that
>> as no part was signed or encrypted, or just an older version of notmuch.
> I understand your concern here.  Would making
> notmuch_built_with("message_crypto_summary") return true solve the
> problem?

or, should we just make the crypto member always present?

Another alternative is to condition the presence of the crypto member on
the arguments (like if --verify is set), but the decision for --decrypt
is a bit awkward because of our default of --decrypt=auto.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

notmuch mailing list

Reply via email to