From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652B06DE0924 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:39:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EdXjp968lVnc for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:39:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 804BA6DE02CE for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:39:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1a8TLC-0008E9-8Y for notmuch@notmuchmail.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:39:02 -0500 Received: (nullmailer pid 31791 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:39:04 -0000 From: David Bremner To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:38:49 -0400 Message-Id: <1450100337-31655-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.6.2 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:39:11 -0000 This obsoletes id:1449842087-10972-1-git-send-email-david@tethera.net I reworked the tests to use gpgsm to generate the certificate. This leaves less room for me to screw things up. Since this requires gpgsm 2.1, I'm including the certs in the patches, rather then having the test suite generate them. This is probably more robust in any case, since we are all then working with the same certificate when debugging. I'm not sure whether to hardcode the fingerprint, leave the previous code with computes it on the fly. So far I left the code, but it could be simplified a bit. One bizarro thing is that we show the expiry as a (very) negative number. I think this because we call sp->integer (sp, expires) where expires is a time_t