Re: [PATCH] send.c: Allow crypto operations in batch and mailx modes.

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 09:05:15PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Darek, Derek. > > So, acknowledging that this discussion is mostly academic since > > there seems not to be anyone to maintain/support new features... > > Yes, it's still academic and useful, since I plan to patch

Re: [PATCH] send.c: Allow crypto operations in batch and mailx modes.

Hi Darek, On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 01:25:29PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > 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: > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] send.c: Allow crypto operations in batch and mailx modes.

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.

Re: [PATCH] send.c: Allow crypto operations in batch and mailx modes.

Hi Werner! 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

Re: [PATCH] send.c: Allow crypto operations in batch and mailx modes.

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.