On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:22:07 -0500, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> > the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
> > PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply the
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:22:07 -0500, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply
> yes, the branch as it stands just concerns itself with the notmuch binary.
OK, fair enough.
> > "sigstatus": [{"status": "error","keyid": "ED34CEABE27BAABC", "errors":
> > 2}]
> > (perhaps due to me not having your key???)
>
> yup, that is why you get that error.
Is there a possibility to
On 12/22/2010 09:38 AM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
>>> "sigstatus": [{"status": "error","keyid": "ED34CEABE27BAABC", "errors":
>>> 2}]
>>> (perhaps due to me not having your key???)
>>
>> yup, that is why you get that error.
>
> Is there a possibility to squeeze a nicer error message out of it? :-)
yes, the branch as it stands just concerns itself with the notmuch binary.
OK, fair enough.
sigstatus: [{status: error,keyid: ED34CEABE27BAABC, errors:
2}]
(perhaps due to me not having your key???)
yup, that is why you get that error.
Is there a possibility to squeeze a nicer error
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:22:07 -0500, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> I was able to merge dkg's signature-verification branch on top of
> cworth's current master head (b3caef1f) with only a tiny
> easily-resolvable conflict. It seems to work exactly as advertised, and
> I wholeheartedly approve and
On 12/21/2010 04:51 AM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> So what am I doing wrong, I pulled your branch and compiled/installed,
> but I don't see any signature verification in my emacs?
>
> Unless all work is still in the notmuch binary,
yes, the branch as it stands just concerns itself with the
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:22:07 -0500, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
I was able to merge dkg's signature-verification branch on top of
cworth's current master head (b3caef1f) with only a tiny
easily-resolvable conflict. It seems to work exactly as advertised, and
I
On 12/21/2010 04:51 AM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
So what am I doing wrong, I pulled your branch and compiled/installed,
but I don't see any signature verification in my emacs?
Unless all work is still in the notmuch binary,
yes, the branch as it stands just concerns itself with the notmuch
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
> PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply the --verify argument to
>
> notmuch show --format=json
>
> It relies on gpg
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply the --verify argument to
notmuch show --format=json
It relies on gpg being
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> The JSON this change produces is similar (but not identical) to my
> earlier proposal on this list.
>
I forgot to mention, I also had a look at the produced json, and it
looks sensible enough.
One thing I'm a bit confused
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> hey folks--
>
> the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
> PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply the --verify argument to
>
> notmuch show --format=json
>
>
On 12/13/2010 05:10 PM, David Bremner wrote:
> One thing I'm a bit confused about, several of the commits in branch
> dkg/mp3-on-0.5 have dkg as author. Are these part of basic multipart
> support? I'm afraid my last look was just at the one commit on top of
> mp3-on-0.5.
i did make a handful of
On 12/13/2010 05:02 PM, David Bremner wrote:
> I had a look at dkg's patch and it looks reasonable to me. Except for
> the small amount of self described "crufty boilplate" which I was too
> lazy to understand. I also compiled and ran it, it seemed to work OK on
> the two test cases I had handy.
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
hey folks--
the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply the --verify argument to
notmuch show --format=json
It relies on gpg
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
The JSON this change produces is similar (but not identical) to my
earlier proposal on this list.
I forgot to mention, I also had a look at the produced json, and it
looks sensible enough.
One thing I'm
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
> PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply the --verify argument to
>
> notmuch show --format=json
Daniel, this is really incredible. I ca
hey folks--
the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply the --verify argument to
notmuch show --format=json
It relies on gpg being in the path, and on the user having the signer's
key in their gnupg keyring
hey folks--
the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply the --verify argument to
notmuch show --format=json
It relies on gpg being in the path, and on the user having the signer's
key in their gnupg keyring
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:35:03 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
the signature-verification branch on my git repo [0] contains functional
PGP/MIME signature verification if you supply the --verify argument to
notmuch show --format=json
Daniel, this is really incredible
21 matches
Mail list logo
