Quoth Jameson Graef Rollins on Dec 23 at 11:55 pm: > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:45:46 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote: > > + /* True if decryption of this part was attempted. */ > > + notmuch_bool_t decrypt_attempted; > > + /* True if decryption of this part's child succeeded. In this > > + * case, the decrypted part is substituted for the second child of > > + * this part (which would usually be the encrypted data). */ > > + notmuch_bool_t decrypt_success; > > + > > + /* True if signature verification on this part was attempted. */ > > + notmuch_bool_t sig_attempted; > > I think these new variables make sense, and reflect the correct > semantics, as you already mentioned. > > I do, however, think the later variable should be called > "verify_attempted" (or "verification_", or "ver_"?), instead of > "sig_attempted", since verification is the complementary action on a > signed part, just as decryption is for an encrypted one. > "sig_attempted" somehow implies to me that one is trying to make a > signature, not verify an existing one. The intent was to parallel sig_validity, but I see your point. v5 with verify_attempted will be coming along soon (when our power comes back).