On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:45:51PM +0100, Niklaas Baudet von Gersdorff wrote:
> Hello,
>
> While talking about an issue I have with mail/{neo,}mutt and
> security/gnupg on #gnupg on freenode I was advised to use
> security/gpgme with mutt. I haven't been using gpgme for a while,
> mainly because the packaged versions of both mail/{neo,}mutt have
> it disabled and I was too lazy to compile it on my own. Since
> I got that advice, I've started wondering:
>
> Why is gpgme disabled by default?
>
> As was argued (and as I experienced myself) setting up mutt to
> work with gpgme is much easier than without. Especially gnupg2
> made it difficult to configure mutt without gpgme. So why not
> enabling gpgme in the packaged versions?
>
> I decided not to create a PR about this request. If that's wrong,
> tell me and I'll create one.For neomutt I haven't added gpgme as the default gpg setup works pretty fine with gnupg2 and the gpg.rc I can be convinced that making gpgme the default is a good idea, though I have never used gpgme Best regards, Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
