Re: PGP menu
On 2010-04-13 06:26:58 -0700, Michael Elkins wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:48:12AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >On 2010-04-12 06:28:17 -0700, Michael Elkins wrote:
> >>On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 01:27:42PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >>The reason for the change was that the original prompt was unclear
> >>to a user. This user thought that 'i' would do an inline signature.
> >>Thus I was trying to make it more clear what that key did.
> >But isn't the inline format an inline signature?
> No, you can use it for all three modes (sign, encrypt sign+encrypt).
Yes, of course (I said "signature" because this was the example).
> In this context inline=traditional. The user that prompted this
> change had the same misunderstanding, which is why I was trying to
> clarify what the 'i' key does.
I don't understand what the misunderstanding is. Did the user think
that "inline" was used for signature only, and PGP/MIME for encrypt
and sign+encrypt? In such a case, I wonder whether adding "format"
> >BTW, perhaps the inline / PGP/MIME switch could be removed. The manual
> > Also note that using the old-style PGP message format is strongly
> > deprecated. (PGP only)
> >So, an option could be sufficient for users who really need it
> >(possibly better with send-hook).
> My guess is that this is a common enough conversion that it would be
> a big usability issue for mutt users. I am inclined to leave the
> functionality there.
I didn't say that the functionality should be removed, just that
it should be provided in some other way (e.g. a variable), not from
the menu. The advantage would be to be able to change the settings
automatically via a send-hook. The user could also toggle the format
via a macro.
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)