On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 13:27, Not Zed wrote:
multipart/signed has been fixed in 1.1.x version. It treats the content
entirely as opaque data as per rfc.
Again the question (wasn't answered last time I asked): Is there any
estimate on a 1.2 release (Or are there 1.1 debs anywhere?). I've
On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 04:14, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 13:27, Not Zed wrote:
multipart/signed has been fixed in 1.1.x version. It treats the content
entirely as opaque data as per rfc.
Again the question (wasn't answered last time I asked): Is
On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 15:06, Dan Winship wrote:
[...1.2 release info...]
You can get 1.1 snapshots from the Evolution Development Snapshots
channel (not just Evolution Snapshots) in Red Carpet though. I don't
know if they're available for ftp too.
It looks like fejj and notzed have made good progress with the
encryption in evolution. I'm a little gun-shy of the cvs HEAD stuff, or
I'd be building it now. I'll wait for the release, unless you guys feel
really strongly that it's pretty stable. I suffer from the fact that
evolution is so darn
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 13:45, Steve Murphy wrote:
[snip]
Here's some of my observations:
1. evolution evaluates encryption in the wrong place in the dataflow,
and therefore has a difficult time verifying signatures. The dataflow
reformats the letter, like modifying the line widths, etc,
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 14:33, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 13:45, Steve Murphy wrote:
[snip]
Here's some of my observations:
1. evolution evaluates encryption in the wrong place in the dataflow,
and therefore has a difficult time verifying signatures. The dataflow
