On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0300, Barbu Paul - Gheorghe wrote:
> Should I create a new patch removing them all?
Sounds like a good idea to me. And update the commit message with
Junio's suggestions.
Regards
Simon
--
+ privacy is necessary
+ using gnupg http://gnupg.org
+ public key id: 0
On 04/11/2013 06:26 PM, Simon Ruderich wrote:
> I think we should remove sslverify = false from the other example
> as well. "Recommending" sslverify = false is IMHO a bad idea as
> SSL provides no protection without verification.
Yep, that was why I thought there should be at least an example wi
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:44:03AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The reason why we can run with sslverify=true against gmail is
> because we know imap.gmail.com gives a validly signed certificate
> that leads all the way to a root CA the user's OpenSSL installation
> is likely to trust (if your ha
On 04/10/2013 09:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thanks.
My pleasure.
> While removing that item from the configuration is a good thing to
> do in the post 1.8.2.1 era, the reason why it is does not have much
> to do with "GMail is SSL capable".
Should I change the commit message in order to avoi
Barbu Paul - Gheorghe writes:
> Since GMail is SSL capable there is no need to set sslverify to false, the
> example using it may confuse readers that it's needed since it's also used in
> the previous example configurations, too
>
> Signed-off-by: Barbu Paul - Gheorghe
> ---
Thanks.
While rem
Since GMail is SSL capable there is no need to set sslverify to false, the
example using it may confuse readers that it's needed since it's also used in
the previous example configurations, too
Signed-off-by: Barbu Paul - Gheorghe
---
Documentation/git-imap-send.txt | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 dele
6 matches
Mail list logo
