On 3/10/2011 6:50 AM, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:01:19PM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>
>> It's not a Mutt bug. It's a GnuTLS bug. See the following:
>
> Thank you for playing, but no, it's not specific to GnuTLS. I can get almost
> identical behaviour with OpenSSL.
Yo
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:27:30AM -0500, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:21:07AM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
>
> > Bottom line, there's not much Mutt can do about this, other than ignore the
> > error, which is almost certainly the wrong thing to do.
>
> Ignoring the error
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 09:21:07AM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> Bottom line, there's not much Mutt can do about this, other than ignore the
> error, which is almost certainly the wrong thing to do.
Ignoring the error seems reasonable if the end result is that I don't have to
restart Mutt. Postel'
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:50:52AM -0500, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:01:19PM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>
> > It's not a Mutt bug. It's a GnuTLS bug. See the following:
>
> Thank you for playing, but no, it's not specific to GnuTLS. I can get almost
> identical behavi
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 03:01:19PM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> It's not a Mutt bug. It's a GnuTLS bug. See the following:
Thank you for playing, but no, it's not specific to GnuTLS. I can get almost
identical behaviour with OpenSSL.
Are you saying that both packages, OpenSSL and GnuTLS, have i
On 3/9/2011 2:23 PM, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 04:18:15PM -0500, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know if this is a known bug, offhand? Or shall I create a login
>> to the bug tracking system and file it?
>
> And foolishly, I forgot to mention what I got this w
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 04:18:15PM -0500, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> Does anyone know if this is a known bug, offhand? Or shall I create a login
> to the bug tracking system and file it?
And foolishly, I forgot to mention what I got this with. To wit:
1.5.21 (2010-09-15) from Fedora 14's Mutt p
I can consistently achieve this:
tls_socket_read (A TLS packet with unexpected length was received.)
...if I have a non-existent mailbox in my mailboxes list.
Does anyone know if this is a known bug, offhand? Or shall I create a login
to the bug tracking system and file it?
--
Mason Lorin
