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
On 08.09.13 14:59, Christian Brabandt wrote:
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.
G'day Christian,
That would remove the editor choice restriction, and
On Sunday 08 Sep 2013 17:31:43 Erik Christiansen wrote:
On 08.09.13 14:59, Christian Brabandt wrote:
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.
G'day
On Sep 09, 2013 at 02:31 AM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
That would remove the editor choice restriction, and so would be more
universal once it exits. Added to that, draft encryption integrated
into mutt uses less keystrokes and requires less user concentration than
encryption provided by
