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
5 matches
Mail list logo
