Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183DA6DE0243 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:42:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.019] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LMuPH4Wk4oNQ for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027F46DE0159 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB8C3F98B; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:42:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 64AA020245; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:42:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Mark Walters , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] postpone and resume support In-Reply-To: <1464976195-23134-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> References: <1464976195-23134-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.22+47~g4441900 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:42:28 -0400 Message-ID: <87eg8eglm3.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 18:42:43 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri 2016-06-03 13:49:52 -0400, Mark Walters = wrote: > This is a new version of the WIP patch at > id:1464915472-5669-1-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com > > So far it seems to deal with all cases that I have tried, and the > CAVEATS list is rather smaller than before. > > The bindings are C-x C-s to save a draft (in notmuch-message-mode) C-c > C-p to postpone a draft (ie save and exit buffer), and "e" to resume > editing from either show or tree mode. You may want to add "draft" to > your list of excluded tags to hide them unless you specifically search > for them. This is a really useful series, even with the caveats Mark lists. i've tested it and it behaves as expected for me. A bit more discussion on the caveats: > Each save saves a separate copy of the message. We hide these copies > with the deleted tag but we don't actually delete them. Thus if you > save several copies of message with large attachments you will use a > lot of space. This is a little bit weird, because it means that all these deleted drafts show up in the thread view when viewing the thread from which the message was composed. Is there a reason to not actually delete older drafts when "re-postponing" or sending? We created the message ourselves, so it seems like it's fair to delete it. > If you use signing or encryption then I don't know what will happen:=20 > I have not tested at all. You might sign a partial message that you > didn't mean too; you might expose plain text to someone. I've just tested this for signing, and it's doing the thing i was afraid it would do :/ When saving a draft marked as a message to be signed, the message signature is made on the draft. Even worse, restoring a saved draft like this leaves the user editing the plaintext while the old message signature is likely to be appended, which will result in broken signatures :/ Maybe there's a way to temporarily inhibit the interpretation of all #secure flags during draft saving (and propagate them through upon resume)? I think that would be advisable anyway -- if we ultimately decide that we want to encrypt drafts, we don't want to encrypt them to the actual recipients anyway; we only want encrypt-to-self, because we want to avoid the situation where the person we're sending the message to gets access to our drafts folder and reads our unfinished/unedited compositions, so that would be a separate and distinct improvement. > Finally, and this is not really a caveat, it *may* be possible to resume > a previously sent message. At the moment I haven't tested this, and > have made it so that emacs warns before allowing it. I've tested it. It's possible, and it even seems to work :) there are weird interactions between things like DKIM and modified message-ids, but i think the warning provided is sufficient to let people know that if they're doing that sort of thing and something breaks, they get to keep both pieces. The biggest danger, i think, is in marking the non-draft for deletion if a user goes ahead with restoring it. --dkg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJXUc+UXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFREIyRTc0RjU2RkNGMkI2NzI5N0I3MzUy NEVDRkY1QUZGNjgzNzBBAAoJECTs/1r/aDcKCxAP/Rby4F1h1heQySr68Q3/kbx+ PZ2hmeZIif5a/mCOG3ZVwM5GFfQEQ5IqhgHsCbirpiGxHTSSJ/k2p8on3d17e9Pw SUiKVaI0Ii1YoFKkCuDLvaC/LobYApYJitE2YywDKxF8/m7JSXld5lyYlQrjVp84 n7qIWpmk+n80KPDJXxhUS9mk9pXZwiERrhak2c1o9HlqFPWfKeQXRuQcwWNiGLeU 2eEPxDFHhfQoq6kZ1mGrwnqbnbU6il7z1ejsFb02F3UthmQ33WQdsA0ZjMTFWsUu jOZhpjYzjyudzFz/9azJaVHM7rF8VVbp762fF6iQqiBWZ7aR6guJMJxb31HwTy+d 4Eaa2RFY/BMnQMcfq5XAW2ryxqP4SB4EnVmi8SPoHBO2DYsPw0P5sNBkYhiJVNoA x+IZBBV2FlyP5DhKAs/VQIb8TMovL9prCJGYdzBoU2LRhAliL7iPggb2KcxXi6Ot 038Ny94fnBoR+khbadDCXlX2Pgx1RFJZxSDMd67knpRhTaae5CMXLtE6sMiXoLQj YQZi5hWrrI2zJeuLVPjxkKqKRrZ2YpsgHDa5gBs+naecWu7ILKAR185HkqVDA3Y6 XEtYL/5zyWFY4qxeTMhO146LE0BgLSDF0X6lVtB0Y66GFo0KUoa9A7kAyDjbV6nN V3E0CMJVwftk1z5HZpGx =XXOg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--