Hi Daniel,

Thanks for clarifying!

Greetings, Varac


Quoting Daniel Kahn Gillmor (2018-04-08 23:18:34)
> On Mon 2018-04-02 18:58:28 +0200, Varac wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to know the state of header encryption support for
> > notmuch (aka memoryhole) [1].
> 
> "memoryhole" refers to "protected headers", not just encrypted headers.
> That is, the headers can be protected both by cryptographic signature
> *and* by encryption.  This is a subtlety, but probably worth getting
> right as we work on documentation and implementations.
> 
> This is on my list of things to work on for notmuch, but i'd be happy if
> someone else beat me to it.  clearly i've taken too long to get this
> done.
> 
> fwiw, memory-hole messages do display successfully in all versions of
> notmuch i'm aware of, but they do so by rendering the "force-display"
> part.  so notmuch currently uses the fallback arrangements as explicitly
> intended by the original memoryhole draft.
> 
> as i see it, the steps are (in order):
> 
>  * handle encrypted subject correctly during message display time if the
>    message is being decrypted.
>  
>  * handle encrypted subject specifically during message decryption at
>    indexing time, storing it the correct subject field, instead of
>    storing the "outside" subject.
> 
>  * suppress display of any "force-display" part during message display
>    time.
> 
>  * handle any other cryptographically-protected headers during display
>    and indexing.
> 
>  * generate protected headers when encrypting mail.
> 
> 
> i welcome help with any of these steps :)
> 
>   --dkg