Re: Comments please: gpg/rfc 3156 support for balsa (looong) (and gmime)

[Carlos Morgado <chbm chbm nu>]

On 2003.02.25 16:34:13 +0000 Albrecht Dreß wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> attached is a big (sorry, I don't have a home page) patch against 2.0.9 
> which is a first attempt to implement gpg signing and encryption according

cool!

> to rfc 3156. It is **not** a completely working solution, but more a "tech

good, as the roadmap that has been secretly ploted (muahahahhaha) impacts
this. in my mind the future of balsa includes gmime - this is not writen
in stone but people seem to consider it a generaly good idea - being the
future somewhere around 2.1.
gmime knows about multipart-encripted and multipart-signed so we get it
basicly for free and all we have to do is write UI for it.
gmime also means abandoning libmutt header/body structures and doing some
work on the backend which means *not* 2.0.
  now i feel guilty for not posting this ideas to the list earlier, but i'll
to my defense it was just this weekend i had time to sit down a bit and
give this plot some quality time.

i'm all for pgp on 2.0 but as i said before the backend work will be at
least partially lost if we do use gmime so, this looks like a good time
to ask, does anyone have anything to say against using gmime ?
(gmime can be made part of the balsa tarball to avoid yet another
dependency)



-- 
Carlos Morgado - chbm(at)chbm(dot)nu - http://chbm.nu/ -- gpgkey: 0x1FC57F0A
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A
Software is like sex; it's better when it's free. - Linus Torvalds