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

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] Fix loose ends in crypto support: pt.3/??: identity
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-15?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2004-05-31 14:53:20
Message-ID: 200405311653.24278 () erwin ! ingo-kloecker ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Monday 31 May 2004 13:36, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Sunday 30 May 2004 22:42, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 May 2004 19:32, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Moreover, Attach My Public Key should then be changed to Attach My
> > OpenPGP Encryption Key. And why can't the user attach his OpenPGP
> > Signing Key? I think we should add all four Attach My ...
> > Key/Certificate options to the Attach menu
> >
> > BTW, I'd also prefer Attach My S/MIME Encryption Certificate.
>
> This doesn't make much sense, since the signing certs are attached
> anyway (inside the sig) and the encryption key will be obtained from
> LDAP, typically.

Okay. But then I wonder why the QWhatsThis mentions "Attach My 
Certificate" if you neither attach the signing nor the encryption 
certificate. ;-)

+    msg = i18n("<qt><p>The S/MIME certificate you choose here will be 
used "
+               "to encrypt messages to yourself and for the \"Attach My 
Certificate\" "
+              "feature in the composer.</p>"

> > I think for encryption keys the "One of the configured OpenPGP
> > encryption keys does not contain any user ID with the configured
> > email address for this identity (%1)." warning is really not
> > necessary.
>
> It has a don't ask again checkbox, hasn't it?

Which is the same for all types of keys. And that's the problem. For 
encryption keys (I implicitely included the S/MIME encryption 
certificate case) it doesn't make much sense while for signing keys it 
might be very important if the receiving end requires that the sender 
address is present in the certificate.

> It's a precaution for 
> the unwary user that clicked on the wrong key. I don't see the point
> in warning in the other three cases and not in this one.

There are only two cases (which wasn't clear from my message): 
Encryption keys and signing keys.

> True, from a 
> technical POV, it may make very little sense, but from a user
> perspective it's confusing to be warned int the three other cases,
> but not in this case, isn't it?

The user won't notice that he is not warned in some cases.

Regards,
Ingo

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
KMail developers mailing list
KMail-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel


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