From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682961F4B4 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 19:51:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235486AbhDKTv4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Apr 2021 15:51:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37972 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235127AbhDKTv4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Apr 2021 15:51:56 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443CAC061574 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id s15so12527587edd.4 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:51:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WMAThRzyWlDa7FBEptSu7QsNraaWFUmtUBe28RT4GWI=; b=YjSDivYbbl3LxECU/mZ10rcvBeFNOprrcNQUuMQGz9JEPqSTMTbFBb2wMf269fEGhr LeOJZCCNTZXyBi6cnn106HLkrr+kQDUGxLBVWAekkYz6x61iN9TXx9k2QNQ7ma4rE4jh coujz6bu9QpTsa277rGkqaerVc3N29zfFUfKMJSMycgcIgqxR60MrOUcOiG0itxVhPBF kYQ9B/cZ2o+qKiHesJmy5W5ElRG2AGQW5uf7P54YsslMcpjaIpI1uSU4q7FwLZ8tbcPu 9TfqiPjBzHwI007xAE6mHg/8zwELk8pok9md4Ov3rz1CFiSY7UYfwrimt8urLHZHR6tm eG8g== 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:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WMAThRzyWlDa7FBEptSu7QsNraaWFUmtUBe28RT4GWI=; b=jXIqSnt0AJrcKCkGmij6NBbNsAgCS5Icw0NPU9zitgQRi67QPJHtNROZLwFNW1ig45 1CSqTXp/2WKyM2U90scva18v3JzZ/uCpKretPL8TImr8HPQACpFn+RUQiV05Jhv6ovTw YVUCxd9WIcvPEQS0dw3XsYpWCEvuJjZClIkHBXjEKS3yLP0plopZeu5WHHop2l9Db19G DisDbizfl1tj32vBnnTFRG32+hEjHAiPDw90AC8Zj4P4CwH7SmBmgrj8NtOfTIhBB7Ly ClyI0CTdd3Oqu4A/Tl6B7/WB/Do2ZzKDAKvfSNhswdUQw6LrOJC+c1rUI4Md6DGY+MSj G3Lg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530maWD3vET2Qq4oD9zJm/5UMt42Mmkcxkny8q90Ek865wYeR0Ck xJjAQuFfDfZRUFTUJtjJxyw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyosLf33tfXl/I3Z0bkWL/giVubM7ta7ym47z3I8FiSOojQJD1FyxdPcw8nVDNgbDUBKDwllw== X-Received: by 2002:a50:d0d8:: with SMTP id g24mr13522430edf.290.1618170697958; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar (j57224.upc-j.chello.nl. [24.132.57.224]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d6sm5313044edr.21.2021.04.11.12.51.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:51:37 -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" References: <20210411125431.28971-1-sir@cmpwn.com> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bullseye/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.4.15 In-reply-to: Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 21:51:32 +0200 Message-ID: <8735vwfvln.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, 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?