On Tuesday 30 October 2001 13:23, Marc Mutz wrote: > On Monday 29 October 2001 22:06, Ingo Kl=F6cker wrote: > > On Monday 29 October 2001 15:48, Marc Mutz wrote: =2E. > So, basically, we have two KMime-Crypto backend plugins (or > Multipart::Encrypted/Signed body part plugins): > 1. gpgme-based (supports gpg-OpenPGP and gpg-S/MIME) > 2. kpgp-based (supports gpg and pgpi through our "old" classes) > > At higher levels, we'd have > 1. kpgpUI based configuration > 2. aegypten based configuration. > > And we'd write a perl script to move the kpgp settings to the "kgpgme" > settings... > > So users have the choice (well, at least if they use gnupg) to either > use the kpgp-based approach, which should function as it does currently > or to move over to the gpgme-based approach, gaining S/MIME support on > their way. > > In 3.1, we'd then try to merge pgpi support into the gpgme-based > approach (either above gpgme or inside it) and basically use a > gpgme-like interface as the "crypto plugin interface". (BTW: there's > also xPG.sf.net to support, though it can emulate gnupg's command line > interface). > > What does everyone think? ACK. =46rom me this would be a fine way. Karl-Heinz --=20 Karl-Heinz Zimmer, Senior Software Engineer, Klar=E4lvdalens Datakonsult = AB BugCops *** Making Free Software Better *** http://bugcops.org _______________________________________________ kmail Developers mailing list kmail@mail.kde.org http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail