On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 03:41:40PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:05:23AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
It's odd to me that, since OpenPGP and S/MIME both support MIME
encapsulation that the draft standard wouldn't use a separate MIME part
to handle the protected headers
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:30:54PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
We applied this patch to neomutt(1) a few months ago. See the link in
the commit message for more details. It's a cherry-pick of neomutt's
commit bd9ceb2a6442b966 ("ncrypt/crypt_gpgme.c: Fix NULL dereference").
Thank you for
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 05:07:17PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:44:18AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:41:58AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> However, saying that mutt adds those headers by accident or as a bug seems a
> bit uninformed.
Fair
Hi Derek,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 04:56:30PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> You're missing the point: All software has bugs. This would be a
> bug, but it's forseeable that mailers would have this bug. For
> example, if the header parser you implement differentiates where to
> put the headers
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:44:18AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:41:58AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > However, saying that mutt adds those headers by accident or as a bug seems a
> > bit uninformed.
>
> Fair enough.
But--and I s'pose I may have just missed it--I
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:10:13PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Derek,
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 03:41:40PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:05:23AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> > > It's odd to me that, since OpenPGP and S/MIME both support MIME
> > >
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:58:42PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> I think these days MIME is not so frowned upon as it once was. But you
> have a point. patatt(5) actually implements an idea like yours for
> signing patches including header fields, precisely for avoiding MIME.
To be clear, I
Hi Derek,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 03:41:40PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:05:23AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> > It's odd to me that, since OpenPGP and S/MIME both support MIME
> > encapsulation that the draft standard wouldn't use a separate MIME part
> > to handle the
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:30:27PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote in
> <20240419191717.ge2...@bladeshadow.org>:
> ...
> |Secondly, there is a standard mechanism for adding non-standard
> |headers to e-mail: use the string "X-" before the thing, and add it
>
> Not anymore
Hi Derek,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 03:17:17PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:38:29PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
> > Signing header fields sounds reasonable, but I don't entirely like an
> > implementation that puts a copy of them in the message body, to be covered
> >
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:05:23AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> It's odd to me that, since OpenPGP and S/MIME both support MIME
> encapsulation that the draft standard wouldn't use a separate MIME part
> to handle the protected headers vs. stuffing it at the top of the
> message body, which just
Derek Martin wrote in
<20240419191717.ge2...@bladeshadow.org>:
...
|Secondly, there is a standard mechanism for adding non-standard
|headers to e-mail: use the string "X-" before the thing, and add it
Not anymore since RFC 6648.
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:38:29PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
> Signing header fields sounds reasonable, but I don't entirely like an
> implementation that puts a copy of them in the message body, to be covered
> by GPG. I'd prefer something more direct, that signs headers without
> copying
Hi everyone,
as a matter of exercise, I've implemented a new mutt option (see the
description in init.h for the details).
If you like it, please feel free to merge.
Kind regards,
Piotr Durlej
---
globals.h | 1 +
init.h| 14 ++
pager.c | 10 --
3 files changed, 23
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 06:51:20PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > It's odd to me that, since OpenPGP and S/MIME both support MIME
> > encapsulation that the draft standard wouldn't use a separate MIME part
> > to handle the protected headers vs. stuffing it at the top of the
> > message body,
Hi Will,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:05:23AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> I hadn't known about the protected header feature for S/MIME / OpenPGP
> before this thread came up (though as mentioned elsewhere in the thread,
> it seems like mainline mutt already supports it going back 4-5 years...
>
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:38:29PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
>
> DKIM already exists, and signs header fields. It publishes a key
> through DNS, and so is used by the administrator of the sending domain
> rather than by the end user. Is that acceptable?
Agree about DKIM, and about the
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:41:58AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> However, saying that mutt adds those headers by accident or as a bug seems a
> bit uninformed.
Fair enough.
--
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:43:20AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:41:58AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > However, I'd like to point out that mutt added basic support for
> > Protected Headers in the 2.0 release, following the Autocrypt project
>
> Ah,
Hi Kurt,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:38:29PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:37:50PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> > I reported around a month ago a couple of security vulnerabilities to
> > neomutt(1), but which are also present in mutt(1) and every MUA
>
> So
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:41:58AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 01:59:57AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > BTW, now that I remember, while developing these things for neomutt(1),
> > I found that mutt(1) has a bug (?) by which it does actually protect
>
Hi Derek,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 08:16:15PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:59:29PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Protecting the recipients and the in-reply-to doesn't mean hiding it.
> > It means providing a copy inside the signed part, so that it can be
> >
22 matches
Mail list logo
