From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Parkins Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't force imap.host to be set when imap.tunnel is set Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:11:59 +0100 Message-ID: References: <200804211459.07527.andyparkins@gmail.com> <7vbq424c8f.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 22 11:12:59 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1JoEYc-0006k7-HI for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:12:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755325AbYDVJMN (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:12:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755042AbYDVJMM (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:12:12 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:36975 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753112AbYDVJMM (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:12:12 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JoEXn-0002BU-EV for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:12:07 +0000 Received: from 194.70.53.227 ([194.70.53.227]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:12:07 +0000 Received: from andyparkins by 194.70.53.227 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:12:07 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.70.53.227 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > I am not an imap-send user myself, but is it the case that the use of > imap.tunnel always makes imap.host useless/unnecessary and safe to be left > as NULL? You're right that it isn't guaranteed to be unnecessary, but equally it's not guaranteed to be necessary - which is just the situation that an optional configuration setting describes. > Driving imapd standalone like the "tunnel" example you quoted above would > trigger preauth behaviour, so that should be safe, but I suspect there are > other ways to use tunnel to just relay the connection over the firewall, > while still requiring the client to authenticate the same way as usual. I'm sure you are correct, but as I say - it's not guaranteed. Since git-imap-send can't know what this particular tunnel requires it shouldn't force the creation of a dummy option. If the tunnel does require a hostname then there is a place to put it, and the person writing the tunnel line can decide that. Andy -- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET andyparkins@gmail.com