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

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 14:33, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 13:45, Steve Murphy wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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
> aborts).
>
> 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 ;-)

amazing how hard it is to fill 24 bits, I've still got 19 bits left!!

That's it, let that chuckle out. We all know you want to laugh!! ;-)

Jeff


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