From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:54:10 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Some improvements for git-imap-send
Message-ID: <20100209185410.GA22092@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <40aa078e1002091037j226eb911v215a5564cba42142@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 07:37:44PM +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:

> > Did you mean "SASL-support that is needed for CRAM-MD5"? The SASL needed
> > for that is pretty simple. Hitoshi's patch 3/4 does all of that already
> > in less than 100 lines.  Using a "real" sasl library might get us more
> > authentication methods than CRAM-MD5, but I don't know that anyone
> > necessarily cares about them.
> 
> No, that's not what I meant. I agree that CRAM-MD5 should be
> sufficient, but to be honest I'd already thought that once you have an
> SSL connection, plaintext would also be sufficient. So I'm thinking of
> this addition as a "hmpf, some server requires stuff that is really
> over the top - perhaps we'll have this problem later with other
> servers, and we'd be better off just using some well-tested
> implementation". But that's kinda philosophical.

Ah, I see. Yes, it's possible that we may want to support other
authentication methods later. In my experience, CRAM-MD5 is the only
common non-plain IMAP mechanism used by IMAP, but I admit it has been
quite a number of years since I actively paid attention to such things.

I'd leave that choice to whoever feels like implementing it. :)

-Peff