On 2010-04-13 06:26:58 -0700, Michael Elkins wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:48:12AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >On 2010-04-12 06:28:17 -0700, Michael Elkins wrote: > >>On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 01:27:42PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >>The reason for the change was that the original prompt was unclear > >>to a user. This user thought that 'i' would do an inline signature. > >>Thus I was trying to make it more clear what that key did. > > > >But isn't the inline format an inline signature? > > No, you can use it for all three modes (sign, encrypt sign+encrypt).
Yes, of course (I said "signature" because this was the example). > In this context inline=traditional. The user that prompted this > change had the same misunderstanding, which is why I was trying to > clarify what the 'i' key does. I don't understand what the misunderstanding is. Did the user think that "inline" was used for signature only, and PGP/MIME for encrypt and sign+encrypt? In such a case, I wonder whether adding "format" really helps. > >BTW, perhaps the inline / PGP/MIME switch could be removed. The manual > >says: > > > > Also note that using the old-style PGP message format is strongly > > deprecated. (PGP only) > > > >So, an option could be sufficient for users who really need it > >(possibly better with send-hook). > > My guess is that this is a common enough conversion that it would be > a big usability issue for mutt users. I am inclined to leave the > functionality there. I didn't say that the functionality should be removed, just that it should be provided in some other way (e.g. a variable), not from the menu. The advantage would be to be able to change the settings automatically via a send-hook. The user could also toggle the format via a macro. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
