On Fri 2017-11-10 18:37:08 +0100, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> On 10.11.17 16:25, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> How does the user know where the first part ends and the second part
>> begins?
>
> There's a horizontal line between every MIME part.
very subtle :(
--dkg
signature.asc
On 10.11.17 16:25, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Fri 2017-11-10 11:12:21 +0100, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
>> That's a very important point. Option B is not possible without hacking
>> deeply into Thunderbird - I would not know how to go that way.
>
> :(
>
>> I think the following variant of A
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:24, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
> reply to this thread earlier -- i had read you as agreeing with Whitey
> when i read the thread offline and didn't have access to the wiki links
I see. What I meant was that I "would have written the same" but long
lasting discussions
On Fri 2017-11-10 11:12:21 +0100, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> That's a very important point. Option B is not possible without hacking
> deeply into Thunderbird - I would not know how to go that way.
:(
> I think the following variant of A is a good compromise:
>
> If the *first* displayed MIME
On Thu 2017-11-09 16:30:45 +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:46, whi...@posteo.net said:
>
>> Why not display exactly what GnuPG reports concerning a signature? Leave
>> it up to the user to make his own value judgments.
>
> That is what I was about to reply ;-).
>
> In fact we
On 09.11.17 19:22, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Hi Patrick--
>
> Thanks for documenting this.
>
> On Sun 2017-11-05 12:06:54 +0100, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
>> We *only* display signature information if *all* of the following
>> conditions are satisfied:
>
> One thing not covered by this
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 19:10, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
>> That is what I was about to reply ;-).
>
> What kind of value judgements do you expect the user to make? Most
I explained this below and pointed to the current state of the
discussion as described in the wiki.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
Hi Patrick--
Thanks for documenting this.
On Sun 2017-11-05 12:06:54 +0100, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> We *only* display signature information if *all* of the following
> conditions are satisfied:
One thing not covered by this discussion is how enigmail will deal with
signatures that do not
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:46, whi...@posteo.net said:
> Why not display exactly what GnuPG reports concerning a signature? Leave
> it up to the user to make his own value judgments.
That is what I was about to reply ;-).
In fact we have spend weeks of work to come of with a useful
representation
On 11/06/2017 11:46 AM, Whitey wrote:
> Why not display exactly what GnuPG reports concerning a signature? Leave
> it up to the user to make his own value judgments.
Because not all users may be capable of jugding gnupg's outputs. And I
think we also want to address the non-tech-savy users.
--
10 matches
Mail list logo
