Re: [Evolution-hackers] inline gpg support bounty

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 16:33 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:23 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 10:47 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:54 +1300, Matt Brown wrote:
> > > > 2) Required Support
> > > > The bounty lists the require functionality as "support of inline-pgp"
> > > > emails, with an extension of allowing them to be sent. 
> > > > 
> > > > Given that there seems to be widespread agreement that inline pgp is
> > > > broken fairly fundamentally, would a patch that only implemented
> > > > decryption / viewing support of received messages be acceptable?
> > > 
> > > I would personally be happy with that, but I'm not sure if just that
> > > much would qualify for the bounty or not (jpr?)
> > > 
> > > certainly rendering received inline-pgp messages is by far the more
> > > important of the 2.
> > 
> > I agree, it is more important.  I think if this was done well, we could
> > separate the two items out (sending and receiving) and pay the same
> > bounty for both.
>
> sounds good to me

I thought the other code already does sending?