<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/25/2016 9:09 AM, Patrick
Brunschwig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:93889041-8430-07de-b20c-e8da03ccc3e3@enigmail.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 25.02.16 14:27, Ben Bucksch wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">R Kent James wrote on 24.02.2016 19:32:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">3) An alpha version of a PEP/Enigmail addon is available
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Please note that the later we get involved, the less influence we can
have on the result.
If your concern is that PEP drops something on us that we can't accept,
then we better get involved earlier rather than later. As you know, cost
of change increases 10-fold each step of the way.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
PEP is a product by an independent organization - the Thunderbird
community by will only have limited influence on the product.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
PeP was trying to ask us to integrate PeP into the product by
default.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:93889041-8430-07de-b20c-e8da03ccc3e3@enigmail.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Therefore, the influence you are talking about will mostly target
Enigmail, not PEP. If Enigmail should become a part of Thunderbird, then
I expect this is something we will certainly need to clarify - I'm open
for such discussions.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I actually do think Enigmail, or at least the PGP
encryption/decryption mechanical parts, should be integrated (and
tested) into Thunderbird, even independently of whatever happens
with PEP. I was more or less holding off on discussing this until my
nsMsgSend rewrite progressed to a stage where I could figure out
what the successor to nsIMsgComposeSecure should look like, since
the current interface is not that answer.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Joshua Cranmer
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archæologist</pre>
</body>
</html>