From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add ability to specify SMTP server port when using git-send-email. Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:25:30 -0700 Message-ID: <7vmyva2uqd.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1190759927-19493-1-git-send-email-glenn@rempe.us> <7vzlza2vcl.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Glenn Rempe , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 26 01:26:25 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IaJnM-00076H-Ir for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:26:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755168AbXIYXZi (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:25:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755158AbXIYXZi (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:25:38 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:44559 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755112AbXIYXZh (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:25:37 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C3E139CF5; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:25:54 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <7vzlza2vcl.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:12:10 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Glenn Rempe wrote: >> >>> +if (($smtp_server =~ /:\d+/) && (defined $smtp_server_port)) { >> >> Not that I want to be a PITA, but this breaks down with IPv6, right? > > Right. Do we care about symbolic "server.addre.ss:smtp" > notation as well, I wonder? Well, does it break? BTW, I do not think we care about ":smtp"; it was a tongue-in-cheek comment.