[sup-talk] sup/gpg

William Morgan wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net
Mon Jun 8 13:23:43 EDT 2009


Reformatted excerpts from Ben Walton's message of 2009-06-06:
> Excerpts from Marc Hartstein's message of Sat Jun 06 14:53:55 -0400 2009:
> > Excerpts from Ben Walton's message of Sat Jun 06 14:45:56 -0400 2009:
> > Those were two different sup instances (I'd quit, created a branch, and
> > applied the discussed patch in between sending the two replies)
> 
> Well, if the patch altered the behaviour, that's a possibility.

What was the patch?

> > I might well have typoed my passphrase for one of the messages and not
> > the other, though I'm not sure which.  I think it's slightly more likely
> > that the BAD message was the one where I made a typo, though.  [I then
> > proceeded to enter it correctly the second time, though, so...]
> 
> When I enter a bad passphrase into pinentry, sup detects this and
> won't send the message...to my knowledge, I'm not able to get a
> multipart/gpg message sent if I don't enter a proper passphrase.

Yeah, an incorrect passphrase will error out, it won't produce a bad
message.

> I think that's reasonable.  My next thought is that there is a small
> bug in the mime parsing (or creating) code...

That is where I would start looking. If you tweak crypto.rb so that it
dumps the payload somewhere (look in #format_payload), you can then
compare that to what ends up in your sent.mbox.

Also you can look at encrypting messages to yourself. Are you able to
decrypt them reliably? If not, is there a pattern? (Non-ASCII in the
headers, body, etc.?)
-- 
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>


More information about the sup-talk mailing list