Hello,
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 08:14:47PM -0400, Tim Gray
wrote:
encrypting a mutt draft in Vim. You encrypt it,
then save the file, and once you are back in
mutt, postpone the message. It worked fine, as
long as you are ok with all the mail headers
being encrypted and thus inaccessible to
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:05:16AM -0500, Dale Raby wrote:
If it's sensitive
enough to be encrypted outgoing, it's sensitive enough to be
encrypted on disk... even if you haven't actually sent it yet.
Well, its easy enough to encrypt the whole disk with modern OS's, so
if the message
On 07.09.13 18:00, Óscar Pereira wrote:
So now suppose (*my* scenario, not yours) that mutt used an external
program to view emails, and, we were discussing adding the feature of
viewing encrypted emails to mutt. By a reasoning *similar* to yours,
i.e. reasoning in a way coherent to yours,
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:08:04PM +0100, Mick wrote:
Yep, I had more than once, on machine(s) with no vim. I've never managed to
learn how to use emacs, but as they say it's never tool late to learn to play
the piano! :p
It's more like an organ, and yes you do need the whole Cathedral.
Hi there,
Mutt Locks reading of folder 'a' while another instance writes a folder 'b'..
But by using Maildir there is no locking - (?)
can anyone tell me ?
- thanks -
Andreas
On 08.09.13 20:14, Tim Gray wrote:
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
On Sep 09, 2013 at 11:47 PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
To have an unencrypted subject line, it's necessary to enter it in mutt,
prior to postponing. However, that's probably an asset if the subject
ought also be obfuscated, E.g. We go to war tomorrow might be safer as
Immediate plans. If
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:05:16AM -0500, Dale Raby wrote:
If it's sensitive
enough to be encrypted outgoing, it's sensitive enough to be
encrypted on disk... even if you haven't actually sent it yet.
Well, its easy enough to encrypt the whole disk with modern OS's, so
if the message
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 06:13:20PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
On 06.09.13 10:10, Derek Martin wrote:
If it's sensitive enough to be encrypted outgoing, it's sensitive
enough to be encrypted on disk... even if you haven't actually sent it
yet.
That's entirely convincing, but it
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 01:47:39AM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
Yes, that is what I (perhaps too briefly) alluded to in the paragraph
quoted above. Writing to that tmp file is entirely under editor control,
with mutt providing only a temporary filename and a transparent pipe.
And in so
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Tim Gray wrote:
Honestly though, I don't see your question as overly pertinent. If
security is a primary concern, why are you sending (and storing)
encrypted messages on a server to begin with? I don't think that's
for me to answer.
Right. There
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:39:09PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
If we can each just argue our own case, then the list can be spared a
lot of noise.
That's a grand idea (seriously), but this is isn't debate club. Most
people have litte or no training in formal logic, and while if you
have
I confess I haven't dug my way through the entire debate on this, but so
far I've seen argument along lines of: is it a necessary feature? if it
is necessary, is it necessary to be supported in mutt per se, or can it
be done externally?
I haven't seen any discussion of what use models it would
On Mo, 09 Sep 2013, David Champion wrote:
I confess I haven't dug my way through the entire debate on this, but so
far I've seen argument along lines of: is it a necessary feature? if it
is necessary, is it necessary to be supported in mutt per se, or can it
be done externally?
I haven't
14 matches
Mail list logo
