> Finally got around to fixing this issue. I think it may be a bug in
> the gpgme gem which I'll investigate further at some point. In the
> meantime, I've worked out how to get sup to stop this being a problem.
> The fix has been applied to next, and will hopefully move to master
> before too long
> I just discovered another problem: If the secret key is not available
> (because it's on a removable media and the media is not mounted), the
> mail is sent anyway. While this is just a bit annoying for signed mail
> it definitely should not happen for encrypted mails. Current sup
> corectly fail
Excerpts from Hamish D's message of dom nov 28 19:51:43 -0300 2010:
> OK, here is a set of 4 patches that implement the change over to the
> gpgme library. There's quite a bit of work in there so I thought I'd
> leave it as a few patches, but I have done some tidying.
>
> I have some more ideas fo
Excerpts from Rich Lane's message of Thu Dec 23 13:43:45 -0500 2010:
> All 5 patches applied to branch gpgme and merged to next.
Branch gpgme has been merged to master.
___
Sup-devel mailing list
Sup-devel@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listi
All 5 patches applied to branch gpgme and merged to next.
___
Sup-devel mailing list
Sup-devel@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-devel
> I just discovered another problem: If the secret key is not available
> (because it's on a removable media and the media is not mounted), the
> mail is sent anyway. While this is just a bit annoying for signed mail
> it definitely should not happen for encrypted mails. Current sup
> corectly fail
Excerpts from Tero Tilus's message of Die Nov 30 07:22:48 +0100 2010:
> Gaudenz Steinlin, 2010-11-29 11:41:
> > As far as I understood the branch layout the flow of changes is
> > master -> next -> release. So applying to next would mean it ends up
> > in the next release (0.12).
>
> Master is con
Gaudenz Steinlin, 2010-11-29 11:41:
> As far as I understood the branch layout the flow of changes is
> master -> next -> release. So applying to next would mean it ends up
> in the next release (0.12).
Master is considered "stable" and next "unstable". Releases are
tagged from master and small c
Hi Hamish
Excerpts from Hamish D's message of Son Nov 28 23:51:43 +0100 2010:
> OK, here is a set of 4 patches that implement the change over to the
> gpgme library. There's quite a bit of work in there so I thought I'd
> leave it as a few patches, but I have done some tidying.
I just discovered
OK, here is a set of 4 patches that implement the change over to the
gpgme library. There's quite a bit of work in there so I thought I'd
leave it as a few patches, but I have done some tidying.
I have some more ideas for improvements, but I'm happy that this
reproduces the behaviour of using the
> This does not work for me when running the foobacca/gpgme tree (commit
> 7b9a1eeeaaa25931963e2de49410d7cb0c7e6772). The CryptoNotice is empty.
Oops. I had one too many flatten! calls and was using the
output_lines.flatten! as a return value. However flatten! returns nil
if there is no flattening
Excerpts from Hamish D's message of Die Nov 16 15:20:03 +0100 2010:
> > The "+" character is right in front of the string "Good signature from
> > ...". If you move the cursor to that line and press enter it changes
> > to a "-" character, but no additional text is shown. The gpg command
> > output
> The "+" character is right in front of the string "Good signature from
> ...". If you move the cursor to that line and press enter it changes
> to a "-" character, but no additional text is shown. The gpg command
> output used to show up there when pressing enter.
>
> I expect there to be some ad
Excerpts from Hamish D's message of Don Nov 11 18:25:13 +0100 2010:
> > - With this patch the output of the gpg run is no longer available.
> > Like this the plus sign in front of the message does not make sense.
> > Is there a way to get at the gpg output with your approach?
>
> The gpg binary
> - With this patch the output of the gpg run is no longer available.
> Like this the plus sign in front of the message does not make sense.
> Is there a way to get at the gpg output with your approach?
The gpg binary is not called, so there is no output from it. What do
you mean by the "plus si
Hi
Excerpts from Hamish D's message of Mon Nov 08 23:32:15 +0100 2010:
> OK, the second patch fixes the problem with the first patch.
I tried your patches and the problem with crash on missing keys seems
to be solved. However I have some more comments:
- With this patch the output of the gpg run
OK, the second patch fixes the problem with the first patch.
Hamish Downer
On 8 November 2010 11:21, Hamish D wrote:
> Best hang fire on this patch. It appears to crash when verifying a signature
> when the public key is not available. I'm investigating the problem and how
> to fix it cleanly an
Best hang fire on this patch. It appears to crash when verifying a signature
when the public key is not available. I'm investigating the problem and how
to fix it cleanly and I'll resubmit once I've done that.
Hamish
On Nov 6, 2010 8:08 PM, "Hamish D" wrote:
I often find that loading long threa
I often find that loading long threads of encrypted messages (I have
several of over 10 messages and one of nearly 40) leads to lots of
flickering as the console replaces sup, sup comes back, the console
comes back again ... It is also very slow, and involves writing
decrypted messages to disk (if
19 matches
Mail list logo
