Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] cli: new crypto verify flag to handle verification

diff --git a/0d/329577d3307afe367be408af2e7b4a79935be6 b/0d/329577d3307afe367be408af2e7b4a79935be6
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..df6c04d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/0d/329577d3307afe367be408af2e7b4a79935be6
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+Return-Path: <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD75431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 19 May 2012 09:29:07 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -2.29\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id t9k5L9L-4fDj for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Sat, 19 May 2012 09:29:04 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu\r
+       [131.215.239.19])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F6C431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Sat, 19 May 2012 09:29:04 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from earth-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by earth-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353D766E008D;\r
+       Sat, 19 May 2012 09:29:04 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on earth-doxen by amavisd-new\r
+Received: from finestructure.net (cpe-98-14-81-93.nyc.res.rr.com\r
+ [98.14.81.93])        (Authenticated sender: jrollins)        by earth-doxen-submit\r
+ (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447EE66E00CB; Sat, 19 May 2012 09:29:01 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)\r
+       id B9B235D4; Sat, 19 May 2012 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT)\r
+From: Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] cli: new crypto verify flag to handle verification\r
+In-Reply-To: <878vgoe7i5.fsf@nikula.org>\r
+References: <1337362357-31281-1-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+       <1337362357-31281-2-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+       <1337362357-31281-3-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+       <1337362357-31281-4-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+       <1337362357-31281-5-git-send-email-jrollins@finestructure.net>\r
+       <878vgoe7i5.fsf@nikula.org>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.12+183~g9d5ff3c (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1\r
+       (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 09:28:57 -0700\r
+Message-ID: <871umg9lti.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";\r
+       micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 16:29:07 -0000\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+\r
+On Sat, May 19 2012, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:\r
+>> +    /* decryption implies verification */\r
+>> +    if (params.crypto.decrypt)\r
+>> +   params.crypto.verify = TRUE;\r
+>\r
+> This does not change existing behaviour, only makes it more obvious\r
+> (which is good), but this seems to be missing from the man page. I\r
+> presume technically decryption doesn't have to imply verification, but\r
+> it's probably a good thing. It should be documented, but does not have\r
+> to be a part of this series.\r
+\r
+Well that's very strange.  I was sure I mentioned that in the man page\r
+back when I originally added decryption support.  But apparently I\r
+didn't.  I'll submit a separate patch to fix the documentation.\r
+\r
+jamie.\r
+\r
+--=-=-=\r
+Content-Type: application/pgp-signature\r
+\r
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)\r
+\r
+iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPt8pJAAoJEO00zqvie6q8mgYP/2OS5xwSFrZ8N2PQ/hMei4Vj\r
+rt3k8G7j+tzXe3gQYyTJMDNyYNGH+baGzSb+DtwB8Pb+2IUUsgJWcvfPhBq0igov\r
+fQDMO4XHMUoCYyczWTQD4CqTgIvLnrMtmip0PvLIwPir5+rdfD0EWJnQ6xl+Q0C5\r
+4yOQcWiivsR2IYUPc6z8RChoRgmjoChuvIHGylC2FawLXmFiZ1j5l6M20CbrUO71\r
+FgnRVw09kUhiNf3L0dviIeiQJjeFzSKy8G5aiIqlkLpDzDK3mo48UNCGqvVjnJqO\r
+HxjfrtqYZgWtPySeDYBWRFh4i2Ft4yueS0rajByfScMem6RsVIkmE71PtHz/Gxan\r
+/382kPaG2MahZDArsERT097zhnHRu1swUwJwPfyyM9FPoIaC3YW2rfy2hRHvqu3H\r
+w+0Xn4L0tqJEfiCcmLpyY1MX0tB8YUwifFrluZMM4lcmfd1bfCHxRf0N4sX0vIZh\r
+0rxtwbY81GvMUQLufOUP4zxmqn7pTvKGT/Uo8ng1gIoliDRhyNdEcw/MUUAVUwut\r
+eUUIG8UbW31Ouq13af2dOU0kiafNtlSHdGOdV56jaA1BYKzMMOUGwa6h2PU2XZ11\r
+kRfqWqaIDGe/dOJISz2cFsUc0D9qx+9K0CPX3KoLP/finZy3ZTioSF6S3jgb91KB\r
+i8lWx8R3lPuMG332lHq1\r
+=IgDb\r
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\r
+--=-=-=--\r