From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D987C433ED for ; Sat, 1 May 2021 09:17:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1169613EA for ; Sat, 1 May 2021 09:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231690AbhEAJSP (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2021 05:18:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38458 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230117AbhEAJSO (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 May 2021 05:18:14 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EE65C06174A for ; Sat, 1 May 2021 02:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id b25so707682eju.5 for ; Sat, 01 May 2021 02:17:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eQxuNzQ53wwGZzJoOnHBwSoQxRgca4/hRj0Hj4WW+qE=; b=G1rR4ZlSQlWSSrdXflvXm1rU5WMBv3VfRBp8oIlNTHfVtXXZ8OIYD/ZHgJrKp3JPtQ Fk0VnnhLVdvzpBMo12vco3Ny9ZwJSlsw5z1t/GSncPa94pSBTB3FQqKdbEqo835idu3b ZOkdn1zfeJtZkpUPLEJyYWqpZZc/aVMTiiPNrBahRDknIIvwy4c7Uh3nos0kL4zZlUuQ Z0+NV7Q8zcyF75Z8XX4IkOvSzOHOJtd7UywjegI0HHgN+rPdtEB9YG3I8/yfEoNVIrx6 GTvgVkjDGJuVWTEJocojR8YSL3BQZKTbNojuMspJzQnsouvXN1YbuyO65i3LZIHP8ZxU numQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eQxuNzQ53wwGZzJoOnHBwSoQxRgca4/hRj0Hj4WW+qE=; b=F6sg2fWizkmy9Y/k/nEk1tsg6hteYsIfZ5p6aNDU3xwlbfbQ77/jNWbXHcAWG9Gzpw bMRLabUfxz4zaXwRyIrR8aHleyJlxcilce/cwl6wfB55DR431UGda7YaWwLg4gY0f03P vQ5fuk+VhD5MxiwqTrEmo6VL+CAoo0eOZ9QBLgZVIF6r8509NDEsgIk0Dby/OgjUHDx7 LBmoYissocJqOT4FQwpMwGqYvOzSskWtYqfZ0Jl/BOSVv5SxIFSvRa4fabAre/XcAkBZ gUMZXyuEpd5QcyS8brxR2PuKy/IalDqGqwi5cWud5HZu4veRr9FXeTJddjpp6s02BbrF m+IA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LrHUJr2yNfYqW6lTan8GJSf2YTVgIWwlUkewMQRL9RSdpHDkG VxkAhmtv1li0WBZrB7HhfJSBd61p/V8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxYnzhNrtoEdUjSjnIP863zi8Fnch35A+Jy/WNyL6KGImBFKP3JH9ir1O5aiDKEHdYAD4lW2g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c058:: with SMTP id bm24mr8399468ejb.335.1619860642796; Sat, 01 May 2021 02:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar (j57224.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.57.224]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hp29sm4561233ejc.47.2021.05.01.02.17.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 01 May 2021 02:17:22 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Drew DeVault Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] send-email: remove non-working support for "sendemail.smtpssl" Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 11:15:43 +0200 References: <20210411125431.28971-1-sir@cmpwn.com> <8735vwfvln.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bullseye/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.5.12 In-reply-to: <8735vwfvln.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Message-ID: <87a6peyfry.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 11 2021, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason writes: >> >>> So let's just remove it instead of fixing the bug, clearly nobody's >>> cared enough to complain. >> >> Hmph, is that a safe assumption? They may have just assumed that >> you did not break it and kept using plaintext without knowing? If >> we do not give a warning when sending over an unencrypted channel in >> red flashing letters, that is more likely explanation than nobody >> caring that we saw no breakage reports, no? > > Maybe, I think in either case this patch series makes senes. We were > already 11 years into a stated deprecation period of that variable, now > it's 13. > > If we're going to e.g. emit some notice about it I think the parsing > simplification this series gives us makes sense, we can always add a > trivial patch on top to make it die if it sees the old variable. > > I don't think that's needed, do you? Junio: *Poke*. Was going thorugh my outstanding patches, I still think it makes sense to just pick this up. Especially with the related discussion later about how common in-the-wild service providers would just not support AUTH non-encrypted, so in practice I think it's even less likely that anyone saw silent breakage as a result of this already-deprecated variable being ignored.