[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mutt sucks



On Tuesday, 06.09.2005 at 17:54 -0600, Ben Pearre wrote:

> Made ya look!  Actually I love Mutt, mostly...

You had me worried there, for a moment :-P

> I know this thread is increasingly off-topic, but I'm going to throw
> in my one Mutt annoyance and see if anyone has a solution.  I asked on
> mutt-user a couple of years ago and got no useful reply...
> 
> How do I tell Mutt to PGP-encrypt any message for which all recipients
> have keys in my keyring?  I think Kmail does this, so it's really an
> embarassment that Mutt doesn't (didn't?)  support it.  Any hints?  Use
> the Source, Cuke?  I was starting in on that but got distracted by
> research.  D'oh!

There's no explicit option for this, AFAIK.  You can choose to "always
encrypt", which I guess will simply fail if you don't have the
appropriate keys.

Alternatively, you could write a short script which reads the output of
"gpg --list-keys" and writes out part of your ~/.muttrc with hooks to
'always encrypt' for those users.

I don't think there's any reliable way to deal with the situation where
a message sent is to multiple recipients, some of whom you have keys for
and some of whom you do not, though.

How does KMail's logic work there?  I assume it's more than simply
"always encrypt"?

Dave.
-- 
Please don't CC me on list messages!
...
Dave Ewart - davee@sungate.co.uk - jabber: davee@jabber.org
All email from me is now digitally signed, key from http://www.sungate.co.uk/
Fingerprint: AEC5 9360 0A35 7F66 66E9 82E4 9E10 6769 CD28 DA92

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: