From kmail-devel  Thu Jun 14 10:55:31 2001
From: Andreas Gungl <Andreas.Gungl () osp-dd ! de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:55:31 +0000
To: kmail-devel
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixes problem with encryptToSelf
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kmail-devel&m=99252107015330

Am Donnerstag 14 Juni 2001 11:40 schrieb Ingo Kl=F6cker:
> On Wednesday, 13. June 2001 08:21, Andreas Gungl wrote:
> > IMO it's too much effort adding parameters to those two Kpgp methods.
> > Wouldn't it be enough to call Kpgp::setUser(<Id>) before doing a call
> > to Kpgp::encryptFor(...) and Kpgp::sign(...)?
>
> Adding a new parameter makes it clear that Kpgp::encryptFor(...) and
> Kpgp::sign(...) will only work correctly if the PGP identity is given
> (although this is an optional parameter in my patch which was not a
> good idea because the correct behaviour of these two member functions
> depends on the given PGP identity). IHMO it makes no sense to force
> developers which use Kpgp to always first call setUser(<Id>) before
> calling encryptFor(...) or sign(...). At least one developer will
> forget to make this mandatory call of setUser(<Id>) and then he will
> wonder why his program behaves strange.

Then there is another question: when we set the user explicitly for signi=
ng=20
and encryptToSelf, why should we use setUser() any longer? Well, I don't=20
have the sources here in the office, but I would think, these calls are n=
o=20
longer necessary then.
Hm, I'll better look at the sources tonight.

Andreas

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