Re: A Laundry-List of Issues
On Thu, Dec 25 2003 at 10:02:14AM BRST, David T-G
<davidtg-muttusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rodrigo, et al --
(BTW, no need to Cc: me, I'm on the list)
> % The patch is one line long (I actually use it). And mutt's behaviour
> % concerning this os not really clever, so it's no wonder someone wrote a
>
> What has to be clever about it? mutt doesn't know or care whether you
> put in the right or wrong passphrase for this key or any other;
Yes, it knows. Right now, it doesn't care, but it definetly knows
(it actually tells you so, and the "patch" is simply calling
pgp_void_passphrase() when that happens).
What I mean by being clever is, if you've typed in a wrong
passphrase (and, again, mutt knows when you do), chances are you'll try it
again. So, it doesn't make sense to store the worng passphrase and force
most people to press on extra C-f most of the time it happens.
I actually think this behaviour (forgetting the passphrase or
leaving it in memory) should be dictated by a variable, but the default
should definetly be forgetting it on error.
> I'll have to look up the patch -- not to apply it, mind you, but to see
> what it does.
There goes:
diff -urN --exclude-from=bin/diff.excludes mutt-1.5.4/pgp.c mutt-1.5.4/pgp.c
--- mutt-1.5.4/pgp.c Mon Dec 16 09:27:26 2002
+++ mutt-1.5.4/pgp.c Thu Jan 2 03:45:47 2003
@@ -958,7 +958,11 @@
}
if (err)
+ {
+ pgp_void_passphrase();
mutt_any_key_to_continue (NULL);
+ }
+
if (empty)
{
unlink (sigfile);
> Whatever works; that's why we have patches :-)
Sure. But, in this case, I can find no good reason why this
behaviour shouldn't be default, or controllable.
rbp
--
Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel <rbp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://isnomore.net GPG KeyId: <0x0DB14978>
Mos Eisley: you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy -
Not at these prices!
-- Mos Eisley Tourism Development Commission