Re: William Yardley 2007-03-17 <20070317010006.GG30068@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Yeah, but we're talking about the installed examples, not a hard-coded > path that mutt will always use. FYI, at least Debian uses that file to generate the gpg config. (Basically by a grep -v ^#.) At the moment we are applying a patch to remove the absolute path names there. If the shipped rc file drops them, that's one patch less where the Debian Mutt is different from "plain" Mutt. Re: Dave 2007-03-18 <20070318084444.GJ5260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > I'm sorry for taking so long to notice this thread. (I was looking through an > interesting thread from Gaëtan LEURENT, and noticed his comment about this > thread, so I decided to read it, and got quite a laugh. If you don't trust > your > own $PATH, there's something fundamentally wrong with your environment. If > you > want extra $PATH security when running Mutt, there's nothing stopping you from > wrapping Mutt with a $PATH sanitizer. The UNIX philosophy isn't to protect a > user from himself any more than the user himself decides to protect himself > from > himself. [...] Thanks Dave. That's exactly what I was trying to say. Christoph -- cb@xxxxxxxx | http://www.df7cb.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature