From: Erik Faye-Lund Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:37:44 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Some improvements for git-imap-send Message-ID: <40aa078e1002091037j226eb911v215a5564cba42142@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100209165745.GA21135@coredump.intra.peff.net> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 04:13:26PM +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jeff King wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 09:09:01PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: >> > >> >>  base64.c                        |  122 ++++++++ >> >>  base64.h                        |   36 +++ >> >>  md5.c                           |  600 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >>  md5.h                           |   61 ++++ >> >>  md5_hmac.c                      |  137 +++++++++ >> >>  md5_hmac.h                      |   36 +++ >> > >> > That's a lot of extra code. Doesn't imap-send already conditionally >> > compile against openssl for starttls support? Can't we just get all >> > three of these algorithms from openssl? >> > >> >> I don't think OpenSSL includes SASL-support that is needed for >> STARTTLS. But it might make sense to use something like GSASL[1] >> instead of rolling all the SASL-mechanisms ourselves. > > 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. > But using openssl to replace the low-level routines in patches 1+2 would > drop almost 1000 lines, and not significantly change his 3/4. > > Personally, I don't care either way about using a SASL library. It's an > extra dependency, but one that is optional for this feature. But > somebody will have to do the work to integrate it, whereas I think using > openssl is only a few lines of change. If somebody wants to do that > work, then great. > I agree. -- Erik "kusma" Faye-Lund