Re: [Evolution] Re: Encryption Interoperability (was: should we support pgp interfaces?)

On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 13:45, Steve Murphy wrote:

Here's some of my observations:

1. evolution evaluates encryption in the wrong place in the dataflow,
and therefore has a difficult time verifying signatures. The dataflow
reformats the letter, like modifying the line widths, etc, and would
probably have been better to check the original message at the front of
the dataflow instead. Fejj, I think,  has been working on this, and I
think he knows all about the limitations, and apparently, it will take a
lot of work to re-do this, if it ever gets done.

this is already completed in CVS, and in fact, seems to work better than
mutt ;-)

I'm now working on making the gpg interfaces better by presenting the
user with key information in the passphrase prompt and allowing up to 3
tries to get the passphrase correct (gpg only allows 3 tries and then

I've also been saving information such as 'trust' in the backend, but as
of yet have no way of displaying this information in the front-end. I'm
not actually sure how badly this is even needed as we display gpg's
stderr which basically contains all this information anyway. Only reason
I'm fiddling with parsing/saving this data is that my state-machine was
wasting 24 bits of data and I figured I'd put it to good use ;-)


Jeffrey Stedfast
Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc.
fejj ximian com  -

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]