| 1 |
On 03:02 Sun 29 Oct , Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Well, I don't really see a reason why one would want to encrypt those |
| 4 |
> mails. The only potentially sensitive information (package |
| 5 |
> name/version) is already contained in the subject and therefore |
| 6 |
> wouldn't be encrypted. And gpg support can be a bitch to maintain, so |
| 7 |
> I'd like to see the benefit before adding that feature. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Marius |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You're right.Right now it can only be useful for paranoids using info |
| 13 |
in ELOG_CLASSES :) Well this patch can be a starting point if gpg |
| 14 |
support is needed some day.. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ali Polatel <31415926j@×××××.com> www.rootshell.be/~hawking |
| 18 |
gpg: 322FEACE fp: 7738 BAA0 834B 43BF 7C1E 22EA D14C 0688 322F EACE |
| 19 |
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail |
| 20 |
/\ |
Archives