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. jamie.