Re: What's needed for mutt 1.6?
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 03:51:19PM -0700, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Friday, February 23 at 05:40 PM, quoth Jeff Macdonald:
> >DomainKeys and DKIM support would be nice too.
>
> What do you mean? DomainKeys and DKIM *signing* is meant to be an MTA
> function, not an MUA function. Do you want to be able to verify these
> signatures in Mutt? (which can be done as an MTA function as well)
Yes, I want to be able to verify them in mutt, knowing full well that a
MTA could provide it but may not. In fact, one may not trust the
DomainKey-Status: header, as a spammer may of put it there in the first
place and the receiving MTA may have no DomainKeys support. One has to
ask the MTA admin to be really sure.
So adding DomainKeys support is just part of something more ambitious.
A Trust mechanism for mutt.
trust scheme command
where scheme is:
DKIM
DK
(whatever new comes along)
that mutt knows how to do (or if it doesn't, scheme is a program that
the message body is fed to over a pipe).
the scheme returns the domain that validation was successful for or
nothing if it wasn't successful. If this domain is in the local address
book then 'command' would be run.
So, that's just the basics. It can grow from there.
--
:: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | jmacdonald@xxxxxxxxxxxx
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com