On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:10:52PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 04:13:14PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 01:41, Alejandro Colomar said: > > > > > This is breaking behavior, so it needs some more justification than just > > > the above. > > > > FWIW, I am using another patch for 2 years now to send unattended but > > signed mails. The patch requires a new option to avoid the risk of > > regressions. See > > > > https://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-dev/Week-of-Mon-20220725/thread.html > > > > and Kevin's follow-up. Unfortunately I had not have the time to > > continue working on the patch to get this or something else upstream. > > Hmm. Interesting. I think I prefer not adding an option. It's > breaking behavior
So, acknowledging that this discussion is mostly academic since there seems not to be anyone to maintain/support new features... > but at least it keeps it simple: you enable crypto in > the config, you get crypto. No it doesn't. I use both encryption and unattended mail, and I don't use gpg-agent or equivalent, quite intentionally, as I want the choice to use encryption to be quite deliberate, requiring me to type my passphrase each time I do so. Your method completely breaks me. No thanks. Besides which, this is Mutt's longstanding development philosophy. It violates principle of least surprise. An option is required. [And this, from a guy who hates adding options...] -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
