[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH]: SLightly change a few strings
From:       Carsten Burghardt <cb () emedia-consult ! de>
Date:       2001-11-30 10:17:31
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 30 November 2001 01:52, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Thursday 29 November 2001 23:10, Chris Howells wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > This patch is fairly self explanatory -- I think it just makes the
> > meaning of the few messages slightly clearer.
>
> <snip>
>
> Currently we show the "good signature" color for sigs from untrusted
> keys, too. Ingo, we should use the "can't be checked" color with
> somthing like "The signature is valid, but not trusted to be authentic"
> (or something like that - I have problems coming up with a message that
> doesn't duplicate the UID...)
>
> Green would then be for "valid and trusted".

Trusted by whom? What means trusted?
Don't get me wrong, it's not a - I don't know so I ask - question, but might 
be the question of your "guinea-pig".

> Yellow for "valid but untrusted" and
>            "can't be checked dur to missing key".
> Red for "is invalid".
>
> What do you think? Can a native speaker without gnupg terminology
> background please stand up and be our guinea-pig? ;-)
>
> Marc
-- 
Carsten Burghardt
PGP/GPG: http://www.emedia-consult.de/security.html

_______________________________________________
kmail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]