So maybe add a hint with the workaround to the error message, maybe even link to some *.reg files that would fix it, with a big fat warning to respect and look out for your E-Mail providers attachement size limits. The 20MB thing from Outlook is nothing more than an educated guess by Microsoft in the first place, some providers have smaller limits and the user has to identifiy the server error code themselves anyways.

The problem is that we keep the original, encrypted, signed structure of the mail as a hidden attachment. When we then add the attachments we extracted from the original mail as "real" attachments in the Outlook data structures we basically double in size and hit an error in Outlook. It does not always have to be double, e.g. if the attachment was compressed in the encrypted data it can be much larger then the original mail. So this happens mostly with data that is not easy to compress.

Thanks. Applied. Also, fixed about a warning for ChaCha20.

I admit that documentation for users should be updated and/or semantics of options could be improved.

Here's another one related to this: https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gcrypt-devel/2022-July/005344.html

Move from g10code to gpgcom, as discussed with Andre.

Move from g10code to gpgcom, as discussed with Andre.

Let me know how best to submit it

I tried to submit the below patch to gnupg-devel@lists.gnupg.org, but get an Unrouteable address error. Let me know how best to submit it

Please arc close-revision D558 this revision.

Oh ok!
Thanks

This change is wrong. The correct fix is rM31423945d214: qt: Fix filename of cmake config files for w32.

Applied with rMd42323f90213: qt: Add #include <QStringList> needed for building against qt6

Last week:

• libgcrypt & ntbtls: T4873
• libgcrypt: T6048
• libgpg-error: T5912
• gnupg: T5984, T5985

This week:

• FSIJ AGM
• Gnuk and firmware update

In D558#5636, @ikloecker wrote:

You have not yet sent a signed DCO to gnupg-devel@gnupg.org (or it's stuck in the moderation queue). Moreover, you do not seem to have signed off your commit.

I think it's best if you send your patches to gnupg-devel@gnupg.org instead of using dev.gnupg.org. Phabricator makes it too difficult to apply your commits.

Sorry. Just saw that you have signed off your commit.

You have not yet sent a signed DCO to gnupg-devel@gnupg.org (or it's stuck in the moderation queue). Moreover, you do not seem to have signed off your commit.

@werner For what it's worth, I would like to apologize for my rudeness and disrespect. I had a quite convoluted notion of what the development process entailed. In particular, I was ignorant of the different and opposing responsibilities and the separation of concerns involved in the development process. In retrospect, there were at least a dozen different ways in which this could/should have been handled and all of them are downstream.

Ping ?