Re: [evolution-patches] Mailer bug #127521: Inline PGP support for evolution (part A: only sending)

[Bohumir Jelinek <bj48 ra msstate edu>]

OK, so there will be three options in "Security configuration" menu
(that seems close to what Jeff has on his mind).

  [x] Sign
  [x] Clearsign (if possible)
  [x] Encrypt

If the "Clearsign" is chosen, the "Sign" option should be "on". I will
jsut turn "Sign" option "on" as soon as the "Clearsign" was chosen by
user, fine?

-Bohumir

> 
> No, please do not do that.
> 
> Have the setting in the settings page, don't prompt every time (it would
> be very annoying).
> 
> The setting might be 'clear sign (if possible)' since you can't
> clearsign non-text parts.
> 
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 20:14 -0600, Bohumir Jelinek wrote:
> > > > > no no no... I'd prefer you add a menu item to specifically clearsign.
> > > > >
> > > > I respect your opinion, and I can follow the orders. It is enough to
> > > > say that you do not intend to discuss, and I can simply do what you
> > > > suggest (add new menu item for the "clearsign").
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > But while working on implementation, I found that:
> > > > 
> > > >  1) You suggest (correct me if I am wrong) three options in the
> > > >     Security menu:
> > > > 
> > > >    [x] clearsign
> > > >    [x] sign
> > > >    [x] encrypt
> > > > 
> > > >       -> There is a lot of uncertainity with these three options,
> > > > 	 since the first two options are exclusive, and the
> > > > 	 exclusiveness is not obvious from the menu (if you suggest
> > > > 	 menu with three equivalent options ...).
> > > > 
> > > >          E.g. it is not clear what should happen if user chooses first
> > > > 	 two options together. I am also not sure if the choice of
> > > > 	 "clearsign and encrypt" is well defined. Actually there are 8
> > > > 	 possible combinations of (yes/no) options alltogether in the
> > > > 	 menu with three items.
> > > > 
> > > > 	 It either allows user to do something stupid (and that can
> > > > 	 generate a lot of support requests), or it needs an extensive
> > > > 	 checking and testing of the code.
> > > > 
> > > >  2) I suggest to offer two simple options in "Security" menu:
> > > > 
> > > >    [x] sign
> > > >    [x] encrypt
> > > > 
> > > >        -> These two options are not exclusive, since any message can
> > > >           be both signed and encrypted. Any combination of these two
> > > >           options makes well defined sense. Later, when user hits
> > > >           "Send" (and only in the case it is appropriate - fro a plain
> > > >           text message), clearsign option is offered by prompt. There
> > > >           is no uncertainity and all GPG sign/encryp options that I am
> > > >           familiar with are covered. It is simpler and unambiguous - I
> > > >           would go with it.
> > > 
> > > I agree with above ...
> > > 
> > > So how you sign the mail should just be a configuration option in the
> > > gpg security settings. Default should be for pgp/mime.
> > > 
> > User can choose: "nothing", "sign", "encrypt" or "sign+encrypt"
> > combinations in the "Security menu" configuration.
> > 
> > ***Then***, if the "Security menu" configuration says "sign" and user
> > hits "Send", mailer program checks if the message is simple "plain
> > text".  If the message is simple "plain text", this pop-up window will
> > appear:
> > 
> >   "PGP signature of plain text message can be inlined.
> >                          Inline?"
> > 
> >      -> Default answer was "Yes", but I can change it to "No". I was
> >         considering to add option of always using "mime" or "inline"
> >         for plain text message to gconf, thus pop-up window would not
> >         show up every time.
> > 
> > -Bohumir
> > _______________________________________________
> > Evolution-patches mailing list
> > Evolution-patches lists ximian com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-patches
>