On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, David Bremner wrote:
> Mark Walters writes:
>
>>
>> I think this is an excellent thing to add. I agree that false positives
>> aren't much of a worry. If someone bumps into them a lot then they can
>> complain or come up with a
Mark Walters writes:
>
> I think this is an excellent thing to add. I agree that false positives
> aren't much of a worry. If someone bumps into them a lot then they can
> complain or come up with a better regex.
>
Should the regex also be a defcustom?
d
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016, David Bremner wrote:
> This is intended to decrease the chance of people ending up with a bunch
> of plaintext drafts of encrypted messages without knowing it.
>
> The check is intentionally overcautious; I think the false positive of
> misplaced #secure
This is intended to decrease the chance of people ending up with a bunch
of plaintext drafts of encrypted messages without knowing it.
The check is intentionally overcautious; I think the false positive of
misplaced #secure tag is probably OK here.
---
This is somewhat RFC. The regex needs to be