Volker, et al -- ...and then Volker Moell said... % % [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % > % > Then I sugest you to use: % > % > macro pager \cv "<enter-command>set pgp_verify_sig\n<exit><display-message><enter-command>unset pgp_verify_sig\n" "Check PGP sig" % % One question: Why isn't there a general solution for this FAQ (sic!)? In
*This* question has started coming up relatively recently, and before now it hasn't been a concern. % the last five months I read mutt-users this problem came up several % times. Lots of mutt-users post their (more or less) complicated macros % which always have their disadvantages. Ok, it seems not to me mutt's % philosophy to support this traditional style. But there are some flags Whoa -- when did we jump to traditional style from macros? These macros simply let you verify *one* sig, be it traditional or not, but usually not spend the time on doing so for all messages. Macros are no longer (in 1.3.x where x=>20 at least) necessary for traditional verification. % to handle it (some of them from patches). But none of these patches % handles the old style in the same easy way than the new one. It's nice % to validate old-style-PGP on keypress. And you can build several macros % to do this in a more-or-less-working manner. But isn't there a solution % like "set handle_trditional_pgp_like_new_style=yes"? All you have to do is hit esc-P and it's all there, AIUI, so either build esc-P into your macro, folder-hook an esc-P on all messages when you enter, or use procmail to "adjust" the message at delivery time so that it looks like MIME. There's no need for another setting and for mutt to have to parse every message in case it *might* be signed in the body. % % Please don't write: There is no patch for this, write one. I don't have Of course I wonldn't write that; I'd use a semicolon instead of a comma ;-) % any clue about this. Unfortunately. I just see the lots of people asking % for this feature (and I guess there are many more wanting it but didn't % ask). And all of them have the same problems. I really don't want to % start a flame war or so. I just wonder about this fact. Is it so hard to % implement this feature that old style works straightforward (i.e. not % with many macros covering approx. 75%)? Unless I've misunderstood (and need correction), you've mixed two different items: traditional checking (accomplished via esc-P) and on-demand verifying (accomplished through various macros). Can you confirm or deny? % % -volker % % -- % http://die-Moells.de/ * http://Stama90.de/ * http://ScriptDale.de/ % % "reality.sys corrupted - reboot universe? y/n" :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg23696/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
