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 52D486DE0159 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:56:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.008 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.712, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 U1Eh3tRxG7DQ for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-f41.google.com (mail-lf0-f41.google.com [209.85.215.41]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72F556DE00D3 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b14so71126517lfg.2 for ; Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:56:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nikula-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version; bh=JlLMbHmuU5exUAWJwr3gjSbdnIAyZuRHpGRIJzwFdB0=; b=RDfmt1fg8SKj7VM4CdYKXUaZF8nAcCY+gKe8srvTqDvU+M48xtpXB8boODoIpcqX4Q 5Bq5hzhbWuV/3tWKrEvDrM8+g7INVfitOQPN/Xz9rNpxe82tgs4kYCzp2su2TaPdFC5U OV+1L0ZUow0eAaqbw8fraK0HICRXCYoFiaszIPO1dIcFCJt5/9I/adiQF+QjHM69FrYH QhjNH0H+A+rmHywCzmhDJPCwynuy8w+S4nxbARBqMoZQmR6Nw/ahZZLTITZnYLb6MNek aRShdqKbnZSWiXa1xSSTagQY+TS5nBO357JRxGzti4gegP3DVCoMA0AkZ5ec69dA5Ybv grjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=JlLMbHmuU5exUAWJwr3gjSbdnIAyZuRHpGRIJzwFdB0=; b=MHpyGMu8PuS0Fk5/+69+aMf3B4uOLU/UodBT3vU4s7FXqiKDaPwt1oiwz2Fm2gk1aP 0rxCxAsiKutaecYTJuXioCSeYlQQAKC1TpZg/O1+/VuJ++zK5NMisX5iOVbQG6F6Cjmc JyKFBa/yDUbxvoNEaa/8pYafenU8YRBTpM0fG/664Fo22UO4ax6Q37KJEUxH3CZo9Q9q MR8RxUyjD0EE6xWuJINHIksCNegfdk9bJC7oj9VUqIYxbssbTUVWPaGiduKcmso+8uIa 2d4ggzJnuf+ftBWj7EOb48o/Rc19uuk8bnSUC1eoInNs/+tUjyzDKDSE8uZ8gsUJ6y3c kFlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcCwgqDdPFwFDHZVRK/0TesJ9tqg0UkxwOCj0U79glr1EHam36rhnKfwTLYmxbAdA== X-Received: by 10.25.14.81 with SMTP id 78mr2483899lfo.183.1478285758280; Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw2-58c368-70.dhcp.inet.fi. [88.195.104.70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y131sm2566000lfd.26.2016.11.04.11.55.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:55:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Jani Nikula To: David Bremner , Tomi Ollila Cc: Notmuch Mail Subject: Re: rfc for notmuch remote access script In-Reply-To: <87pomit6j6.fsf@tethera.net> References: <87lgx9ln56.fsf@localhost.localdomain.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <874m3wvjzx.fsf@tethera.net> <8760oa41s6.fsf@nikula.org> <87pomit6j6.fsf@tethera.net> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 20:54:05 +0200 Message-ID: <87wpgjxeia.fsf@nikula.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 18:56:02 -0000 On Sun, 30 Oct 2016, David Bremner wrote: > I'm not using remote access, and I don't really have opinions about the > best way to do it. I do have 2 concerns about the overall idea > > 1. I worry about the maintenance burden of extra code ./configure > 2. I worry about promoting remote-notmuch for non-experts when the > situation with gpg seems quite broken, at least for people not > willing to store private key material on the server. Both are valid concerns, I think especially the second one. And even the gpg case is not that simple; personally I'd prefer not storing private key material on the client... ymmv. BR, Jani.