Rodrigo, et al --
...and then Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel said...
%
% 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)
I'm easy; I do whatever your M-F-T: indicates you would like.
%
% > 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).
Well, it can recognize an error, but it doesn't know whether this
passphrase is right for anything. I have multiple keys with different
passphrases; I would hate for mutt to forget the passphrase because I
accidentally pick the wrong key!
%
% 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
I can accept that argument.
% 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.
Maybe not for you, but it sure does for me.
%
% 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 would accept it if it can be controlled and I definitely think that the
default should be to not forget :-)
%
% > 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)
Aha. I'm going to guess that this doesn't differentiate between the
wrong passphrase for the key and the wrong key for the passphrase. Of
course, there's no way mutt could tell, either; it would take me to know.
% + {
% + pgp_void_passphrase();
% mutt_any_key_to_continue (NULL);
% + }
% +
That's odd. What did the code do if (err) before the patch?
% 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.
I'll allow the latter but still object to the former.
Thanks & HAND & Happy Holidays
:-D
--
David T-G * There is too much animal courage in
(play) davidtg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * society and not sufficient moral courage.
(work) davidtgwork@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Mary Baker Eddy, "Science and Health"
http://justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
Attachment:
pgpeLrg85Kb96.pgp
Description: PGP signature