The typical use case for gpg is that if you control a secret key, you
mark it with "ultimate" ownertrust.
This bizarrely opaque --import-ownertrust mechanism is GnuPG's
standard mechanism to set up ultimate ownertrust (the ":6" means
"ultimate", for whatever reason).
---
test/test-lib.sh | 1 +
The typical use case for gpg is that if you control a secret key, you
mark it with "ultimate" ownertrust.
This bizarrely opaque --import-ownertrust mechanism is GnuPG's
standard mechanism to set up ultimate ownertrust (the ":6" means
"ultimate", for whatever reason).
---
test/test-lib.sh | 1 +
On Wed 2019-04-24 18:06:44 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> The typical use case for gpg is that if you control a secret key, you
> mark it with "ultimate" ownertrust.
>
> This bizarrely opaque --import-ownertrust mechanism is GnuPG's
> standard mechanism to set up ultimate ownertrust (the ":6"
The typical use case for gpg is that if you control a secret key, you
mark it with "ultimate" ownertrust.
This bizarrely opaque --import-ownertrust mechanism is GnuPG's
standard mechanism to set up ultimate ownertrust (the ":6" means
"ultimate", for whatever reason).
---
test/test-lib.sh | 1 +
E-mail structures are potentially arbitrarily complicated.
Cryptographic protection standards like S/MIME and OpenPGP or PGP/MIME
are often applicable to some elements of some messages.
Last year's "E-Fail" attacks made it clear that trying to provide
normal users with cryptographic protections
Deliberately populate the message's cryptographic status while walking
the MIME tree from the CLI.
Note that the additional numchild argument added to _mime_node_create
is a passthrough needed to be able to adequately populate the crypto
state object.
---
mime-node.c | 24
E-mail encryption and signatures reported by notmuch are at the MIME
part level. This makes sense in the dirty details, but for users we
need to have a per-message conception of the cryptographic state of
the e-mail. (see
https://dkg.fifthhorseman.net/blog/e-mail-cryptography.html for more
This allows MUAs that don't want to think about per-mime-part
cryptographic status to have a simple high-level overview of the
message's cryptographic state.
Sensibly structured encrypted and/or signed messages will work fine
with this. The only requirement for the simplest encryption + signing
The mime node context (a per-message context) gains a cryptographic
status object, and the mime_node_t object itself can return a view on
that status to an interested party.
The status is not yet populated, and for now we can keep that view
read-only, so that it can only be populated/modified
On Sat 2019-04-20 13:02:57 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Unsigned encrypted mail shows up with a weird empty signature list.
> If we successfully decrypted and there was no signature in it, we
> should just not show a sigstatus at all.
Just a ping on this -- i don't think it should be
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> If a test has added a GnuPG homedir, it may well want to know the
> fingerprint. This saves us from having to redefine this magic string
> in multiple places when more tests evenutally use the GnuPG homedir.
pushed, with typo in commit message fixed
Doan Tran Cong Danh writes:
> From notmuch 0.28, notmuch support relative database path in
> notmuch-config(1), but python binding haven't taught this yet.
>
> afew denied to work with a perfectly fine notmuch-config due to this.
pushed to master
d
Örjan Ekeberg writes:
> Added the type 'regexp and group 'notmuch-send as properties to the
> customizable variable notmuch-mua-attachment-regexp.
pushed,
d
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
>>
>> -sphinx-texinfo: .texi.stamp
>> +sphinx-texinfo: $(DOCBUILDDIR)/.texi.stamp
>
> I think this final change (to the sphinx-texinfo target) belongs in the
> previous patchset.
>
> Otherwise, this series looks good to me, using your followup two-part
> replacement
On Mon 2019-04-22 11:33:34 +0200, Örjan Ekeberg wrote:
> This addresses the same issue, and therefore overlaps with the patch
> I submitted a week ago.
> (id:20190415133519.4532-1-ekeb...@kth.se)
sorry, i'd missed your earlier patch! i agree that your patch is
obviously better than mine, thanks
15 matches
Mail list logo