[Evolution-hackers] inline gpg support bounty
Not Zed
notzed@ximian.com
Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:40:09 +0800
--=-9V3Iow27xHu1Z1gCmKMm
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 16:33 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:23 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 10:47 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:54 +1300, Matt Brown wrote:
> > > > 2) Required Support
> > > > The bounty lists the require functionality as "support of inline-pgp"
> > > > emails, with an extension of allowing them to be sent.
> > > >
> > > > Given that there seems to be widespread agreement that inline pgp is
> > > > broken fairly fundamentally, would a patch that only implemented
> > > > decryption / viewing support of received messages be acceptable?
> > >
> > > I would personally be happy with that, but I'm not sure if just that
> > > much would qualify for the bounty or not (jpr?)
> > >
> > > certainly rendering received inline-pgp messages is by far the more
> > > important of the 2.
> >
> > I agree, it is more important. I think if this was done well, we could
> > separate the two items out (sending and receiving) and pay the same
> > bounty for both.
>
> sounds good to me
I thought the other code already does sending?
--=-9V3Iow27xHu1Z1gCmKMm
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.5.7">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 16:33 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:23 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 10:47 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:54 +1300, Matt Brown wrote:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > 2) Required Support</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > The bounty lists the require functionality as "support of inline-pgp"</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > emails, with an extension of allowing them to be sent. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > Given that there seems to be widespread agreement that inline pgp is</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > broken fairly fundamentally, would a patch that only implemented</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > > decryption / viewing support of received messages be acceptable?</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > I would personally be happy with that, but I'm not sure if just that</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > much would qualify for the bounty or not (jpr?)</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > certainly rendering received inline-pgp messages is by far the more</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> > important of the 2.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> I agree, it is more important. I think if this was done well, we could</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> separate the two items out (sending and receiving) and pay the same</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">> bounty for both.</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">sounds good to me</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I thought the other code already does sending?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--=-9V3Iow27xHu1Z1gCmKMm--