Hey, folks. I just pushed a couple of patches to my "crypto" branch [0]
that add support for auto-tagging of multipart/signed and
multipart/encrypted messages with the "signed" and "encrypted" tags
respectively. Only new messages are thus tagged, so a database rebuild
is required to auto-tag old
Hey, folks. I just pushed a couple of patches to my "crypto" branch [0]
that add support for auto-tagging of multipart/signed and
multipart/encrypted messages with the "signed" and "encrypted" tags
respectively. Only new messages are thus tagged, so a database rebuild
is required to auto-tag old
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:24:03 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth
wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:41:48 +, Darren McGuicken fernseed.info> wrote:
> I also run the crypto branch since it has been published and it is
> working just fine.
I have just started using the crypto branch, and after a few mistep
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:24:03 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth
wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:41:48 +, Darren McGuicken
> wrote:
> I also run the crypto branch since it has been published and it is
> working just fine.
I have just started using the crypto branch, and after a few misteps on
my part
Jameson Rollins writes:
> If folks have suggestions for disambiguating tag names that don't
> themselves create further confusion on some other front, then I'm
> inclined to just go with the simplest and most straightforward tag name.
Are persistent tags required here? The original question at
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:16:13 -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> Are persistent tags required here? The original question at least,
> seemed to just be asking for a visual indicator that a message has
> encrypted or signed bits. So I wondered if that might be accomplished
> without actual tags.
Hey, R
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:16:13 -0600, Rob Browning
wrote:
> Are persistent tags required here? The original question at least,
> seemed to just be asking for a visual indicator that a message has
> encrypted or signed bits. So I wondered if that might be accomplished
> without actual tags.
Hey,
Jameson Rollins writes:
> If folks have suggestions for disambiguating tag names that don't
> themselves create further confusion on some other front, then I'm
> inclined to just go with the simplest and most straightforward tag name.
Are persistent tags required here? The original question at
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:08:39 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> The outstanding question in my mind is whether those tags could be
> mistaken by a naïve user for meaning one of the other concepts. Is
> there a way to name the tags to minimize that kind of confusion?
I think that would be diffi
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:08:39 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> The outstanding question in my mind is whether those tags could be
> mistaken by a na?ve user for meaning one of the other concepts. Is
> there a way to name the tags to minimize that kind of confusion?
I think that would be diffic
On 02/28/2011 02:56 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:59:54 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
>> But: what does the "signed" tag mean? i wouldn't want to necessarily
>> conflate these four ideas:
>
> These are good points, Daniel. However, I had actually just
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:41:48 +, Darren McGuicken wrote:
> If feedback is needed here then likewise, I've been running the crypto
> branch since it was made available. The only strangeness I've seen was
> that which was reported in id:"87sjw2h6xy.fsf at bookbinder.fernseed.info"
> for expired
On 02/28/2011 01:25 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:52:45 -0500, Ross Glover
> wrote:
>> I too am now running the crypto branch and find it quite amazing. The
>> one feature I would like added, though, is some face color or
>> auto-tagging in the search buffer for mail with e
On 02/28/2011 02:56 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:59:54 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> wrote:
>> But: what does the "signed" tag mean? i wouldn't want to necessarily
>> conflate these four ideas:
>
> These are good points, Daniel. However, I had actually just been
> thinking
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:59:54 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> But: what does the "signed" tag mean? i wouldn't want to necessarily
> conflate these four ideas:
These are good points, Daniel. However, I had actually just been
thinking of something much simpler, along the lines of just tagging
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:59:54 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> But: what does the "signed" tag mean? i wouldn't want to necessarily
> conflate these four ideas:
These are good points, Daniel. However, I had actually just been
thinking of something much simpler, along the lines of just tagging
On 02/28/2011 01:25 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:52:45 -0500, Ross Glover
> wrote:
>> I too am now running the crypto branch and find it quite amazing. The
>> one feature I would like added, though, is some face color or
>> auto-tagging in the search buffer for mail with e
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:52:45 -0500, Ross Glover wrote:
> I too am now running the crypto branch and find it quite amazing. The
> one feature I would like added, though, is some face color or
> auto-tagging in the search buffer for mail with encrypted mime parts.
> It seems like this could be achi
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:52:45 -0500, Ross Glover
wrote:
> I too am now running the crypto branch and find it quite amazing. The
> one feature I would like added, though, is some face color or
> auto-tagging in the search buffer for mail with encrypted mime parts.
> It seems like this could be ach
I too am now running the crypto branch and find it quite amazing. The
one feature I would like added, though, is some face color or
auto-tagging in the search buffer for mail with encrypted mime parts.
It seems like this could be achieved with notmuch effort (by someone
notme) by adding similar fu
I too am now running the crypto branch and find it quite amazing. The
one feature I would like added, though, is some face color or
auto-tagging in the search buffer for mail with encrypted mime parts.
It seems like this could be achieved with notmuch effort (by someone
notme) by adding similar fu
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:41:48 +, Darren McGuicken
wrote:
> If feedback is needed here then likewise, I've been running the crypto
> branch since it was made available. The only strangeness I've seen was
> that which was reported in id:"87sjw2h6xy@bookbinder.fernseed.info"
> for expired ke
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:45:15 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> Further to our discussion on IRC the other day about providing
> feedback on patches, I have run these patches pretty much all of
> February with no glitches. I am running them on 3 different machines,
> although they are all Debian AMD64
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:45:15 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> Further to our discussion on IRC the other day about providing
> feedback on patches, I have run these patches pretty much all of
> February with no glitches. I am running them on 3 different machines,
> although they are all Debian AMD64
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:18:45 -0800, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> Hi, all. I have pushed a new branch called "crypto" to my notmuch
> repository [0]. This branch provides full support for PGP/MIME signed
> and encrypted messages, including emacs UI support. It has been applied
> on top of cworth's c
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:18:45 -0800, Jameson Rollins
wrote:
> Hi, all. I have pushed a new branch called "crypto" to my notmuch
> repository [0]. This branch provides full support for PGP/MIME signed
> and encrypted messages, including emacs UI support. It has been applied
> on top of cworth's
26 matches
Mail list logo
