Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] cli/show: emit new whole-message crypto status output
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > > or, should we just make the crypto member always present? > That was what I was thinking, sorry to be less explicit than I could have been. > Another alternative is to condition the presence of the crypto member on > the arguments (like if --verify is set), but the decision for --decrypt > is a bit awkward because of our default of --decrypt=auto. > ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] cli/show: emit new whole-message crypto status output
On Fri 2019-05-24 16:09:38 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Thu 2019-05-23 07:50:43 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
>> Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
>>
>>> headers:headers,
>>> +crypto?:crypto, # omitted if crypto disabled, or if no part
>>> was signed or encrypted.
>>> body?: [part]# omitted if --body=false
>>> }
>>
>> I'm wondering about the "upward compatible" aspect of this. If the
>> crypto key is ommitted, a client doesn't know whether to interpret that
>> as no part was signed or encrypted, or just an older version of notmuch.
>
> I understand your concern here. Would making
> notmuch_built_with("message_crypto_summary") return true solve the
> problem?
or, should we just make the crypto member always present?
Another alternative is to condition the presence of the crypto member on
the arguments (like if --verify is set), but the decision for --decrypt
is a bit awkward because of our default of --decrypt=auto.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] cli/show: emit new whole-message crypto status output
On Thu 2019-05-23 07:50:43 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
>
>> headers:headers,
>> +crypto?:crypto, # omitted if crypto disabled, or if no part
>> was signed or encrypted.
>> body?: [part]# omitted if --body=false
>> }
>
> I'm wondering about the "upward compatible" aspect of this. If the
> crypto key is ommitted, a client doesn't know whether to interpret that
> as no part was signed or encrypted, or just an older version of notmuch.
I understand your concern here. Would making
notmuch_built_with("message_crypto_summary") return true solve the
problem?
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] cli/show: emit new whole-message crypto status output
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > headers:headers, > +crypto?:crypto, # omitted if crypto disabled, or if no part > was signed or encrypted. > body?: [part]# omitted if --body=false > } I'm wondering about the "upward compatible" aspect of this. If the crypto key is ommitted, a client doesn't know whether to interpret that as no part was signed or encrypted, or just an older version of notmuch. d ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
