The order of states is "expired", "revoked", "disabled", "invalid", "certified", "not certified". Since we show only one state we need to define an order. I guess it would make sense to give "disabled" the highest priority. (I also think that "revoked" should have higher priority than "expired".)

This is how it looked before (VSD 3.2.2):

In T7089#188733, @ebo wrote:

What I see is: If the status of a certificate is "certified" or "not certified" before disabling it, then Kleo shows "disabled" in the User-ID column. If it was "revoked" or "expired", those are not changed. The same is true for the "Status" info in the details.
Is this distinction on purpose? What is the reason?

Well, now it does not occur for me any more, either. Ok, I'm setting this to resolved, this was most likely a situation where Kleopatra could not write to the kleopatrastaterc (in %APPDATA%\kleopatra\) for some reason. This would then be a more general issue, anyhow, for which we need another ticket if we can reproduce this.

I got confused in the various tests and mixed up the Qt6 test on normal Windows 10 with the Qt5 test. In the Qt6 case there are still issues, but that might be explained by packaging still. But for this we have less urgency.

The only change i remember and can find regarding that, is, that for the initial keylisting we disabled the check using the context flag T6261: Kleopatra / QGPGME: Use --no-auto-check-trustdb for initial keylisting since we suspected that this had something to do with reports that the initial keylisting either locked up or was very slow. At the least the goal was that by no auto check trustdb on the initial keylisting it would make it behave more consistently from start to start. But I am pretty sure that you told at least me, that Kleopatra should not try to explicitly do trustdb checks and try to manage that since gnupg takes care of this internally.

That's the way it works today in some organizations:
If users can't delete their key they are requested to ask their GnuPG admin, they actually do so and the admin does help.

I'd be in favor of keeping the UI and just fixing the most significant bugs it has.

with Version 3.2.2.2405000+git~ (Gpg4win-4.3.2-beta41):

can't reproduce either

We had discussed this several times in the past as this is similar for files. Like you could do an opaque signing and encrypt for files, the same you can do it for text here. But as I remember it the end result was mostly that since the proper solution would be for GnuPG to support that T2435: gpgsm combined sign and encrypt it should be done in GnuPG proper. And we really did not have any real usecase of S/MIME file and text encryption since S/MIME was even more then OpenPGP about Mails for the Gpg4win users.

I did what you did, didn't even need to restart Kleopatra.

I cannot reproduce this with Version 3.2.2.2405000+git20240712T143635~6033869e1. I open the Details window, go to Subkeys, right-click table header, select Keygrip, close Details window, open it again, go to Subkeys, Keygrip column is still shown. Even after restarting Kleopatra.

With Version 3.2.2.2405000+git~ (Gpg4win-4.3.2-beta41) II can add a keygrip column to the subkey details. But if I close the details window and open it again, the column are no longer selected.

The easiest solution would be a setting for gnupg. Then Kleopatra would just error out. But, as Andre rightfully points out, people will work around this restriction. Users are incredibly creative.

Just to clarify: I didn't say that we should remove the coloring/font style of certificates. I just said that I vote for removing the UI for changing the colors and font style.

Since Kleopatra does not suppress the pinentry prompts think there is even one additional question at least for S/MIME. So it asks you once from Kleopatra and then you are asked by GnuPG.
AFAIR we had discussed this in the past and also came up with the Idea that the user should type in DELETE. That dialog should then come from GnuPG I think so that it is the same.

gpg makes it pretty hard to delete a secret key; thus having a (user settable) option in Kleopatra makes a lot of sense to me.

No. To solve that problem we have the revocation certificates autogenerated in the GnuPG home folder and which are kept of course when a user deletes their key.

Mh, no, on the other hand the style is useful in the "All certificates view" to make distinctions based on multiple parameters. "Like trusted S/MIME root certificate" and it is useful to see that right away instead of using the filters. So my vote would be to clean it up, but keep it in general.

Experiences from customers are that people create their certificate, upload it to a server. Then they notice a mistake in their name and delete the whole cert and upload the new one. Now there are two certificates on the server. This is only one example of what can go wrong. Admins want this not to happen and that's the reason for this feature. More warnings will probably not solve the problem.

Hard to decide as we have no data how much it is used. :-/ But I tend to agree here. We should not loose sight of the fact that Kleopatra should be more of a diagnostic tool and provide all the information a user might need to solve their issues with signing, verification, encryption and decryption. Kleopatra is not something a user uses so often that they play around with appearance or so like they maybe would in a MUA. Certificate management is just an unwelcome side effect required for crypto. But users do not want to do certificate management for its own sake.

I vote for removing the UI for configuring the appearance of the certificate categories completely from Kleopatra. This would solve all usability problems in an instant. People who want to go crazy with colors can edit the rc file.

You could use colors, fonts, icons to mark any certificate you want instead of having to use tags and filter by them. You could even put their company logo on certificates of your communication partners.

In T7212#188683, @ebo wrote:

We might also consider going all out and allowing a configurable appearance on a per certificate level. Then this feature would see an increase in use for sure. But it should work without issues, in that case, as then people will notice them…

From the support angle, the worst of these issues is that the default will not be restored for VS-NfD. But then: nobody has inquired about that yet…

The high-contrast modes disable all colors, but for normal dark modes we might have a problem with some of the predefined colors.

Yes, this is all something that is ugly. The VS-NfD colorization was done by justus winter back then since I fell sick and it was one of his first and only tasks in Kleopatra. So it is normal I think if that is implemented differently then other things. And in general the whole appearence configuration is I think rarely used. To me it always felt like a "We add it because we can." feature. But also with this mix of filters defined in a preinstalled libkleopatrarc and additionally hardcoded filters it is all strange.
Well colors and so on should be changeable for accessibility of course.

In MMO Games this is usually handled that a player either has to type in "DELETE" or type in the Characters name to delete the character. At least in the last games I played.

KWin has a script called "Dim screen for Administrator Mode" which mimics the windows behavior.

I would give this low priority. There is no way to prohibit that except if the user has no deletion rights on the file system. There are already multiple dialogs asking the user to confirm the secret key deletion. A user could by the same logic "Free up some space" in their local home directory and delete %APPDATA%.

Yes this was just a performance thing and had no other UX reasons so we can change it.

In T7206#188622, @aheinecke wrote:

With the imports I also find the imported certificates tab more useful then the number. Since I think that adding full blown keylist views would be a bit of an overkill I personally would probably just use an expandable widget in the notification and work with lists of updated users ids / summary lines.

But since this also would be some custom code maybe it would be better to show a full list view of the updated certificates?

Ok, well in the days were did not have that much development power on Kleopatra and GpgME refresh keys just took the lazy part and offered the gpg output in a window. I still think that can be useful (e.g. diagnostics) to have as an additional details button. Especially in case of errors. What very often happens here is that the online access gets blocked somehow maybe even only to some servers. I am not sure if the numbers are really a helpful information. Please keep in mind: What do we want to inform the user about? If the user just sees some numbers is this really helpful? I think the user might want to either see which certificates were updated and which werent or if there were any problems updating. Personally I would find the information "what" changed the most important but that seems to me like too much icing on the cake. Like

• Changed expiry: foo@bar.baz <0xbadbeef> boo@bar.baz <0xa....>
• New signatures:

....

• Changed subkeys:

....

ok, works with Version 3.2.2.2405000+git~ (Gpg4win-4.3.2-beta41).

works now, Version 3.2.2.2405000+git~ (Gpg4win-4.3.2-beta41)

As for renaming "Change Reset Code" to "Set Reset Code", what about "Change PIN" and "Change Admin PIN"? Should they also be renamed? If not, why not? Is there no default reset code? Is there a way to find out whether the reset code has already been set (in which case "change" would be more appropriate than "set")?

It's not tagged vsd33 and I didn't plan to backport this since it depends on other changes (T6787) that are master-only.

Similarly, the table for NetKey cards.

Will this be backported? Since the pgpcardwidget otherwise contains strings which are neither in master nor in kf5 I would say so.

For first feedback on the new slot/certificate table.

Yes sounds good to me. Since we have the ability even in the full list view to filter for "only with secret" certificates. Regarding gpgme_set_sender. Only GpgOL uses this, we only really need it for TOFU I think. To leave that discussion / point out of this issue I created T7199: KMail / Kleopatra: Use gpgme_set_sender to add a hint which UserID was selected for a signature

ok, I like your proposal. To recap:

This behavior of the encrypt-to-others input field is intended. It avoids "Multiple matching certificates or groups found" errors if there is one current (good) certificate and one (or more) old expired certificates for an email address. There's a button to open a dialog listing all certificates so that the user can find a certificate they are missing in the input list's completion list. I think this is an acceptable compromise between making all certificates discoverable (even expired or revoked ones) and offering not too many irrelevant certificates. When the user selects a bad certificate in the selection dialog we should probably show a note that this certificate cannot be used instead of showing "Error: No matching certificates or groups found".

In T7183#188348, @ebo wrote:

I'm not sure if we are talking about the Encrypt-to-self drop-down or the Encrypt for others input fields. On the other hand, I see little reason to treat both differently.

At the moment they are treated differently. In the dropdown for encrypt-to-self no expired certificates are listed. encrypt-to-others does not have a dropdown. You are not able to find an expired Certificate by typing the name. But you can open the certificate list to chose from, where expired certificates are shown and selectable.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the Encrypt-to-self drop-down or the Encrypt for others input fields. On the other hand, I see little reason to treat both differently.

I agree with Ingo and Werner here. In summary

fixed in https://invent.kde.org/pim/kleopatra/-/merge_requests/243; we were not calling the visibility logic when initially creating the view.

https://invent.kde.org/pim/kleopatra/-/merge_requests/242

• Don't show the tab if the certificate list was empty before the import
• Show tab when any keys were considered, not only when any keys were imported

ok, new try. As Ingo now clarified that that "nothing was imported" and "nothing was considered" is synonymous for him, then I misunderstood that comment. As far as I understand the "considered" that would mean that a tab would come up for import of unchanged keys, too.

ok, to make it clear how exactly to implement and test this, let me rephrase what my interpretation of your comment is:

Just a small addendum to what Andre wrote: Obviously, no tab should be shown if nothing was imported (i.e. numConsidered is 0).

The final (known) encoding problem with broken umlauts in German error descriptions should be fixed.

The ticket mentioned in the previous comment is T7190: Kleopatra: wrong claim of update in WKD for keys with no mail address.

If one or more keys are refreshed and none of the keys has non-revoked user IDs with email addresses then Kleopatra shouldn't report a result for WKD anymore.

Backported for VSD 3.3.

Turns out

• the singular instead of plural in the German version is a translation thing and should now be fixed (but is not in the testversion beta35)
• there is another issue muddying the waters regarding search in WKD, for which I will create another ticket

I have to correct myself. After restarting Kleopatra, only the following columns are shown, without any changes from my side:

Well, i can live with it. It would be an improvement.
I would prefer if no import tab was created if a key has not been updated and therefore nothing was actually imported. But I see that this would be more complicated to implement and I have no strong opinion on this anyway.

So Tobias fixed the technical reason why there was no import tab shown after the certify questions because I was too lazy (no I had no more time ;-) ) when I implemented this to carry the keylistcontroller around.