Re: mutt/2114: S/MIME algorithm choice too long
The following reply was made to PR mutt/2114; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: TAKAHASHI Tamotsu <ttakah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: mutt/2114: S/MIME algorithm choice too long
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:09:47 +0900
* Sun Oct 16 2005 Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Konbanwa Takahashi-san,
Domo. :)
> > >Fix:
> > A patch is uploaded.
> >
> > With this patch, mutt first asks
> > "1: DES, 2: Triple-DES, 3: RC2-40, 4: RC2-64, 5: RC2-128, (m)ore, or
> > (c)lear? "
> >
> > If you press "m", the prompt changes to
> > "6: AES128, 7: AES192, 8: AES256, (m)ove back, or (c)lear? "
>
> If you take note of the options, another possibility presents itself.
> Notice that there are groups of common algorithms, differing only in
> size. You could have each group form a menu, with a submenu for the
> sizes, e.g.:
>
> Choose Algorithm family: 1: DES, 2: RC2, 3, AES, (c)lear?
>
> Then, you'd get one of:
>
> 1: DES, 2: Triple-DES, (c)lear?
> 1: RC2-40, 2: RC2-64, 3: RC2-128, (c)lear?
> 1: AES128, 2: AES192, 3: AES256, (c)lear?
>
> What do you think of that idea?
Your idea has advantages:
* Easy to understand.
* The number of items is unlimited.
(Mine limits it to 36 [0-9a-z].)
Mine has other advantages:
* Backward-compatible.
* The code is relatively simple.
* Quick. (e.g. If you know the key for AES256,
you don't need to press "m". Just press "8".)
I don't know which is the best.
But I, as a user, prefer yours.
--
tamo