Jumping in here, I have modified the previously posted code here to
provide me with a more complete solution.
With the attach code, I can:
* automatically encrypt mails if all recipients have a *valid* public
key. The previous patch allowed encryption if a key existed but was
revoked,
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:19:51 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:48:30 -0500, Antoine Beaupré anar...@anarcat.ath.cx
wrote:
Jumping in here, I have modified the previously posted code here to
provide me with a more complete solution.
This looks good. I'll
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:45:01 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:20:26 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > Isn't it still necessary to ensure that you have encryption keys
> > appropriate to the recipient?
>
> I want to ensure that all replies to encrypted to be
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:45:01 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:20:26 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Isn't it still necessary to ensure that you have encryption keys
appropriate to the recipient?
I want to ensure that all
On 01/25/2012 12:45 PM, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> Here's a behavior that I think would be reasonable:
>
> * notmuch reply outputs JSON encrypted flag
>
> * emacs does a quick check to see if the needed key is available
>
> * if key not available: give a nice mini-buffer prompt,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:26:19 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:23:01 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > Can you explain the logic that will apply to determine whether or not a
> > reply is encrypted?
>
> My plan was to modify notmuch-reply.c to include a flag in the
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:20:26 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> Isn't it still necessary to ensure that you have encryption keys
> appropriate to the recipient?
I want to ensure that all replies to encrypted to be encrypted. I would
rather have the reply fail outright than fall back to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:10:47 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:34:32 -0500, micah anderson
> wrote:
> > David replied to it because it was sent to him, but the list email
> > hasn't come through yet (I want this functionality, so I'm dying to see
> > the patch!)
>
>
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:23:01 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> Can you explain the logic that will apply to determine whether or not a
> reply is encrypted?
My plan was to modify notmuch-reply.c to include a flag in the JSON
output if the message being replied to was encrypted. The emacs reply
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:23:01 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Can you explain the logic that will apply to determine whether or not a
reply is encrypted?
My plan was to modify notmuch-reply.c to include a flag in the JSON
output if the message being replied to was encrypted. The
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:26:19 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:23:01 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Can you explain the logic that will apply to determine whether or not a
reply is encrypted?
My plan was to modify
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:20:26 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
Isn't it still necessary to ensure that you have encryption keys
appropriate to the recipient?
I want to ensure that all replies to encrypted to be encrypted. I would
rather have the reply fail outright than fall back to
On 01/25/2012 12:45 PM, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
Here's a behavior that I think would be reasonable:
* notmuch reply outputs JSON encrypted flag
* emacs does a quick check to see if the needed key is available
* if key not available: give a nice mini-buffer prompt, something like:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:19:51 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:48:30 -0500, Antoine Beaupr? anarcat.ath.cx> wrote:
> > Jumping in here, I have modified the previously posted code here to
> > provide me with a more complete solution.
>
> This looks good. I'll switch over to
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:34:32 -0500, micah anderson wrote:
> David replied to it because it was sent to him, but the list email
> hasn't come through yet (I want this functionality, so I'm dying to see
> the patch!)
Hey, Micah. There an outstanding patch series that add a new JSON reply
format,
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:19:51 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:48:30 -0500, Antoine Beaupré anar...@anarcat.ath.cx
wrote:
Jumping in here, I have modified the previously posted code here to
provide me with a more complete solution.
This looks good. I'll
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:10:47 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:34:32 -0500, micah anderson mi...@riseup.net wrote:
David replied to it because it was sent to him, but the list email
hasn't come through yet (I want this functionality, so I'm
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:19:51 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:48:30 -0500, Antoine Beaupr? anarcat.ath.cx> wrote:
> > Jumping in here, I have modified the previously posted code here to
> > provide me with a more complete solution.
>
> This looks good. I'll switch over to
>(if (and force (re-search-forward "<#secure [> >]*>\n" nil t))
> (replace-match "" nil nil))
>;; If we can encrypt, do so, else just sign.
>(if (or force (not (re-search-forward "<#secure [> >]*>\n" nil t)))
Is this second test for `force' necessary? If `force'
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:48:30 -0500, Antoine Beaupr?
wrote:
> Jumping in here, I have modified the previously posted code here to
> provide me with a more complete solution.
This looks good. I'll switch over to using it.
> Code is attached. Obviously, those function names would change if they
>
Jumping in here, I have modified the previously posted code here to
provide me with a more complete solution.
With the attach code, I can:
* automatically encrypt mails if all recipients have a *valid* public
key. The previous patch allowed encryption if a key existed but was
revoked,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:48:30 -0500, Antoine Beaupré anar...@anarcat.ath.cx
wrote:
Jumping in here, I have modified the previously posted code here to
provide me with a more complete solution.
This looks good. I'll switch over to using it.
Code is attached. Obviously, those function names
Hi David, notmuch developers,
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:48:43 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:36:39 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > (if (and encrypt (dme:message-determine-encryption))
>
> Oops. `encrypt' is set to `t' earlier if the code decides that I want to
>
Hi David, notmuch developers,
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:48:43 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:36:39 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
(if (and encrypt (dme:message-determine-encryption))
Oops. `encrypt' is set to `t' earlier if the code decides
Hi Jameson,
* Jameson Graef Rollins [12. Jan. 2012]:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:45:14 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins finestructure.net> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, auto encrypting of replies to encrypted emails is not yet
>> implemented. It is desperately needed, though, obviously. So this is a
>>
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:05:14 +0100, Gregor Zattler wrote:
> 2) encrypt if suitable public keys for all recipients are in
>GnuPGs key ring.
[...]
> But I have no clue about how to do this with notmuch/Emacs.
Isn't that what David provides an elisp-snippet for in
id:"cunk4576ezs.fsf at
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:05:14 +0100, Gregor Zattler wrote:
> But how about not only replying encrypted but encrypting every
> email if possible? "Possible" could mean different things,
> though:
This is already easy to do in emacs, and doesn't require any special
notmuch support:
(add-hook
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:45:14 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> Unfortunately, auto encrypting of replies to encrypted emails is not yet
> implemented. It is desperately needed, though, obviously. So this is a
> good excuse to start a discussion about how we could achieve this.
>
> It just
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:45:14 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
Unfortunately, auto encrypting of replies to encrypted emails is not yet
implemented. It is desperately needed, though, obviously. So this is a
good excuse to start a discussion about how we could
Hi Jameson,
* Jameson Graef Rollins jroll...@finestructure.net [12. Jan. 2012]:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:45:14 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
Unfortunately, auto encrypting of replies to encrypted emails is not yet
implemented. It is desperately needed, though,
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:05:14 +0100, Gregor Zattler telegr...@gmx.net wrote:
But how about not only replying encrypted but encrypting every
email if possible? Possible could mean different things,
though:
This is already easy to do in emacs, and doesn't require any special
notmuch support:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:05:14 +0100, Gregor Zattler telegr...@gmx.net wrote:
2) encrypt if suitable public keys for all recipients are in
GnuPGs key ring.
[...]
But I have no clue about how to do this with notmuch/Emacs.
Isn't that what David provides an elisp-snippet for in
Hi Jamie, notmuch developers,
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:45:14 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:56:51 +0100, Gregor Zattler telegr...@gmx.net wrote:
I replied to a PGP/MIME signed and encrypted e-mail and was
astonished to realise that my reply
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:36:39 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> (if (and encrypt (dme:message-determine-encryption))
Oops. `encrypt' is set to `t' earlier if the code decides that I want to
encrypt outgoing mail (it's not set for work purposes, in essence).
-- next part
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:45:14 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> Any other suggestions?
In the function that I add to `message-send-hook' I do the following:
(message-goto-body)
;; If already set, don't override.
(if (not (looking-at (regexp-quote "<#secure ")))
Hi Jamie, notmuch developers,
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:45:14 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:56:51 +0100, Gregor Zattler
> wrote:
> > I replied to a PGP/MIME signed and encrypted e-mail and was
> > astonished to realise that my reply was sent unencrypted (and
> >
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:45:14 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
Any other suggestions?
In the function that I add to `message-send-hook' I do the following:
(message-goto-body)
;; If already set, don't override.
(if (not (looking-at
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:36:39 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
(if (and encrypt (dme:message-determine-encryption))
Oops. `encrypt' is set to `t' earlier if the code decides that I want to
encrypt outgoing mail (it's not set for work purposes, in essence).
pgpVwxXz7acMP.pgp
Dear notmuch developers,
I replied to a PGP/MIME signed and encrypted e-mail and was
astonished to realise that my reply was sent unencrypted (and
unsigened for that matter).
Actually the message buffer in which I write replies has Auto
Encryption Mode enabled, but nothing happens.
Till now I
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:56:51 +0100, Gregor Zattler wrote:
> I replied to a PGP/MIME signed and encrypted e-mail and was
> astonished to realise that my reply was sent unencrypted (and
> unsigened for that matter).
Yikes! Sorry this happened, and I hope nothing too sensitive was
exposed.
Auto
Dear notmuch developers,
I replied to a PGP/MIME signed and encrypted e-mail and was
astonished to realise that my reply was sent unencrypted (and
unsigened for that matter).
Actually the message buffer in which I write replies has Auto
Encryption Mode enabled, but nothing happens.
Till now I
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 20:56:51 +0100, Gregor Zattler telegr...@gmx.net wrote:
I replied to a PGP/MIME signed and encrypted e-mail and was
astonished to realise that my reply was sent unencrypted (and
unsigened for that matter).
Yikes! Sorry this happened, and I hope nothing too sensitive was
42 matches
Mail list logo
