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. --dkg
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch