Re: forgetting passphrase (was "Re: A Laundry-List of Issues")
On Fri, Dec 26 2003 at 04:00:49PM BRST, David T-G
<davidtg-muttusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...and then Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel said...
> % (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.
True (as Nicholas pointed out). I was using "lists" (not
"subscribe") with the default followupto=yes, so mutt generated a
Mail-Followup-To header indicating a Cc to me. Sorry, mea culpa, I hope it's
fixed (I'll check hen this message arrives :)
> % > 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.
True. I'll try and hack into it later.
> I have multiple keys with different
> passphrases; I would hate for mutt to forget the passphrase because I
> accidentally pick the wrong key!
That's what I was thinking of when I mentioned a controllable
situation.
> % 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.
Good :)
> % 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 can accept a default as it is today, to follow the rule of least
surprise. As I said, I'll try and see how hard it is to have mutt recognize
a passphrase error and add a variable option to forget it.
> % + {
> % + pgp_void_passphrase();
> % mutt_any_key_to_continue (NULL);
> % + }
> % +
>
> That's odd. What did the code do if (err) before the patch?
mutt_any_key_to_continue(NULL);
> % 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.
I'm happy with the latter :)
> Thanks & HAND & Happy Holidays
Thanks, you (and all the nice - and, oh well, the mean too - people
on this list :) too, here's hoping for a better 2004 :)
rbp
--
Rodrigo Bernardo Pimentel <rbp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://isnomore.net GPG KeyId: <0x0DB14978>
Right, stop that! It's silly!