From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D365431FC7 for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2014 22:46:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qAPFBQEpw5qf for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2014 22:45:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from yantan.tethera.net (yantan.tethera.net [199.188.72.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 138E5431FBC for ; Sun, 30 Nov 2014 22:45:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by yantan.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XvKk6-0002hx-0p; Mon, 01 Dec 2014 02:45:54 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 17696 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 01 Dec 2014 06:45:48 -0000 From: David Bremner To: David Edmondson , notmuch@notmuchmail.org, 759646@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: [Vagrant Cascadian] Bug#759646: notmuch-emacs: switching mode= to invalid value sends unencrypted mail In-Reply-To: References: <87lhq7npcw.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> <87k35q2zso.fsf@nikula.org> <54055C53.40604@fifthhorseman.net> <87egsldds6.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.19+2~g32855b9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 07:45:48 +0100 Message-ID: <87388zdg0z.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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, 01 Dec 2014 06:46:06 -0000 David Edmondson writes: >> I'm a little torn what to do here. On the one hand the upstream change >> fixes the bug as reported. On the other hand, if something corrupts the >> #secure tag (e.g., by deleting a letter), then the message is still sent >> un-uncrypted. > > I'm unclear on what you mean. Is it that "upgrade to 24.4" is not a good > enough answer, because we are still leaving pre-24.4 people out in the > cold? No, I mean the fix is rather narrow in that editing somewhere else on the same line causes the same problem as before, even in 24.4 d