On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 10:02:20AM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 2003-12-16 03:14:40 -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > I'm starting to think that coloring messages should be done by a > > display_filter rather than Mutt itself, since these types of > > filtering ops shouldn't really have to mess with control > > characters ... I guess when you ask why I miss ELM, I have to > > answer that it liked going to extremes to delegate functionality > > to separate programs, whereas Mutt sometimes tries to do a tad > > too much all by itself, IMHO. . . > > [-- not an attachment marker --] Yeah, that's a bit of a problem. . . > The colorizing is, in fact, done in the pager, which seems to be the > proper place to do it. That also used to be the case for the "[--" > lines -- with the problem that you wouldn't be able to distinguish a > mutt-generated attachment marker from a user-generated one. This > problem turns into a security issue when people become able to fake > PGP output. > The old work-around for this was to include a time stamp in the > attachment marker for PGP output; This is what my current Mutt does: [-- PGP output follows (current time: mar 16 dic 2003 05:35:05 EST) --] I don't suppose that's what you mean. If you can tell me what version still had the old workaround, I'll take a peek. (If it was before 1.2.5i, it was before I started using Mutt.) > the new work-around is to generate > a cookie at mutt start-up (a time stamp turned into a pseudo-ANSI > control sequence) which is included in the beginning of attachment > marker lines, and understood by the pager. Wait, so it isn't a color escape sequence. Okay ... hmm ... let's just hope DGC doesn't notice ;-P Just out of curiosity, what was deemed wrong with the previous workaround? - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp4QMRhEzBng.pgp
Description: PGP signature