Re: GPGME error
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:03:22AM +, Darac Marjal wrote: > I managed to see it read "[setting sender] mailbox ...". That was > enough for me to find the function "void mutt_gpgme_set_sender()". > > I can see that this function sets the sender for gpgme (presumably so it > knows who to sign as), but my question is why is the message "[setting > sender] mailbox: %s" displayed using mutt_error()? Hi Darac, Thanks for the report. As you guessed, it shouldn't be using mutt_error() here. I don't think the message has much utility, given how quickly it flies by, so I will change it to use a debug statement instead. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA signature.asc Description: PGP signature
GPGME error
Hello all, For a while now, when I sign messages with GPG, I see an error message flash up briefly before being replaced by the signing prompt. Up until now, I'd not been able to read the message before it disappeared, but today (perhaps my terminal was being a bit slow) I managed to see it read "[setting sender] mailbox ...". That was enough for me to find the function "void mutt_gpgme_set_sender()". I can see that this function sets the sender for gpgme (presumably so it knows who to sign as), but my question is why is the message "[setting sender] mailbox: %s" displayed using mutt_error()? Is it *actually* an error to set the sender? Should this have been implied elsewhere, for example? Or is this just a bit of debugging information that's being rather too loudly logged? Thanks. -- For more information, please reread. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: New mutt GPGME error
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:10:01AM -0400, Mark H. Wood wrote: > > I'm another Gentoo user. I unmasked Mutt 1.8.2-r2 to see if it > would help a problem I was having with some S/MIME signed messages, > and that pulled in gpgme 1.8.0-r3. I have fewer problems now with > S/MIME and no new issues. Excellent. That's exactly the kind of thing I like to hear, "less bugs" ... Regards, Ben signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: New mutt GPGME error
I'm another Gentoo user. I unmasked Mutt 1.8.2-r2 to see if it would help a problem I was having with some S/MIME signed messages, and that pulled in gpgme 1.8.0-r3. I have fewer problems now with S/MIME and no new issues. -- Mark H. Wood Lead Technology Analyst University Library Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis 755 W. Michigan Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 317-274-0749 www.ulib.iupui.edu signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: New mutt GPGME error
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > On 2017-06-02 04:51, Ben McGinnes wrote: > >> There shouldn't be. While new functions are periodically added to >> GPGME as features are added to GPG and its related projects, >> efforts are made not to change existing functions. > > I think I found it: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600600 > > More mutt's fault than the library's, for using such a generic name. Ah ... and that corresponding fix in mutt: https://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/84ad86e8b8ab That's ten days after GPGME 1.8.0's release. So you should be pretty safe overriding Gentoo's restriction there. Regards, Ben signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: New mutt GPGME error
On 2017-06-02 04:51, Ben McGinnes wrote: > There shouldn't be. While new functions are periodically added to > GPGME as features are added to GPG and its related projects, efforts > are made not to change existing functions. I think I found it: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600600 More mutt's fault than the library's, for using such a generic name. -- Please *no* private Cc: on mailing lists and newsgroups Personal signed mail: please _encrypt_ and sign Don't clear-text sign: http://primate.net/~itz/blog/the-problem-with-gpg-signatures.html
Re: New mutt GPGME error
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:28:07PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:09:40AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: >> Is there a good reason for this restriction, i.e. a known >> incompatibility with gpgme-1.8 and later? > > I'm compiling against gpgme 1.8.0, and am not aware of any issues. > I haven't tested against 1.9.0 yet, but haven't received any reports > of problems. If anyone is aware of an issue, please file a ticket > or email mutt-dev. I'd be extraordinarily surprised if there were any since the majority of the changes between 1.8 and 1.9 were language bindings additions. There were one or two bugs fixed and a bit of documentation, but very little core work. There's a little bit, but not very much. Still, as much as I'm willing to bet that Gentoo did something silly here, I've also seen some ridiculous things under the hood of GPGME, so if you find anything that shouldn't be there or is doing anything odd, bring it over to gnupg-devel. Other than the GTK2 stuff, we know it's gotta go. Regards, Ben signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: New mutt GPGME error
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:09:40AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > Is there a good reason for this restriction, i.e. a known > incompatibility with gpgme-1.8 and later? I'm compiling against gpgme 1.8.0, and am not aware of any issues. I haven't tested against 1.9.0 yet, but haven't received any reports of problems. If anyone is aware of an issue, please file a ticket or email mutt-dev. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: New mutt GPGME error
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:09:40AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > Somewhat related: > > The latest (in fact, the only) mutt version in gentoo stable is > 1.5.24. When I roll my weekly gentoo upgrade I am warned that a new > version of gpgme, namely 1.8.0, is available, but is not being > installed because the mutt package has a versioned conflict with it. > More precisely, it has a versioned depend on gpgme >= 0.9.0 && gpgme > < 1.8.0. That's odd. > Is there a good reason for this restriction, i.e. a known > incompatibility with gpgme-1.8 and later? There shouldn't be. While new functions are periodically added to GPGME as features are added to GPG and its related projects, efforts are made not to change existing functions. That said, there are definitely some ancient relics buried in there which will eventually be purged, but that work hasn't been done yet and it's highly unlikely that any of it will affect Mutt, either adversely or otherwise. That's all the GTK2 stuff that's buried in there, some of which is used with GPA, but most of it isn't used by anything. This was an error in GPG's dev path from years ago. > I'd prefer to install the latest stable gpgme and be done with the > warning. Of course this is gentoo specific but if a mutt expert > knowns of such incompatibility I'll probably hear about it faster on > this list ;-) It should be fine. I was using Mutt 1.7 with various dev versions of GPGME until recently when I switched to a somewhat customised (to look at non-port installations of some things, including openssl and GPGME) MacPorts installation of Neomutt with GPGME 1.9.0. It works just fine. bash-4.4$ echo bye | /usr/local/bin/gpgme-tool OK GPGME-Tool 1.9.0 ready OK closing connection bash-4.4$ Most of the most recent changes in GPGME have just been extending the native language support for GPGME. Particularly Python, C++ and Qt. Regards, Ben signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: New mutt GPGME error
On 2017-05-30 10:00, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > I just upgraded to Ubuntu 17.04 and got a new version of mutt: 1.7.2.1 > > > > I now frequently get the following error message for delivered mail: > > > > "GPGME: CMS protocol not available" > Alternatively, you can install the gpgsm package, to enable S/MIME (CMS) > support in GPGME. Somewhat related: The latest (in fact, the only) mutt version in gentoo stable is 1.5.24. When I roll my weekly gentoo upgrade I am warned that a new version of gpgme, namely 1.8.0, is available, but is not being installed because the mutt package has a versioned conflict with it. More precisely, it has a versioned depend on gpgme >= 0.9.0 && gpgme < 1.8.0. Is there a good reason for this restriction, i.e. a known incompatibility with gpgme-1.8 and later? I'd prefer to install the latest stable gpgme and be done with the warning. Of course this is gentoo specific but if a mutt expert knowns of such incompatibility I'll probably hear about it faster on this list ;-) -- Please *no* private Cc: on mailing lists and newsgroups Personal signed mail: please _encrypt_ and sign Don't clear-text sign: http://primate.net/~itz/blog/the-problem-with-gpg-signatures.html
Re: New mutt GPGME error
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 06:57:00AM -0700, Jeffery Small wrote: > > I just upgraded to Ubuntu 17.04 and got a new version of mutt: 1.7.2.1 > > I now frequently get the following error message for delivered mail: > > "GPGME: CMS protocol not available" > > I'm not using gpg and would like to stop the continual generation of these > messages. I'm hoping that there is something that can be placed in the > config file that can control this. If you're not using gpg, the easiest fix is to put 'unset crypt_use_gpgme' in your .muttrc. Alternatively, you can install the gpgsm package, to enable S/MIME (CMS) support in GPGME. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA signature.asc Description: PGP signature
New mutt GPGME error
I just upgraded to Ubuntu 17.04 and got a new version of mutt: 1.7.2.1 I now frequently get the following error message for delivered mail: "GPGME: CMS protocol not available" I'm not using gpg and would like to stop the continual generation of these messages. I'm hoping that there is something that can be placed in the config file that can control this. Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Jeff Small
