Re: authinfo gnutls netrc.el auth-sources & smtpmail-starttls-credentials

[MON KEY]

Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden> writes:

> I appreciate your suggestions very much.  I am just asking you to

No problem. Gladly.

> present them in a way that I can understand more readily.  From looking

This might be a problem.

> at the stream of Emacs bug reports for a while, most people can submit
> verbal explanations just fine, using code to support but not replace

I find that hard to believe. Does D. Armstrong have an 800#? 
I'll consider leaving a message next time :P

> them.  For reference, here's what M-x report-emacs-bug suggests:

This is not of itself a bug.

> Sure, let's hope whoever does will write a patch or explain it better.

Sure. why not.

> All right.  Please use e-mail next time, so you can be clear in what
> you're reporting.  It would have saved time, and is the standard way to
> report security issues.

See, as you say the issue at hand isn't of itself a bug. 

Ted, this 'time thing' is an entity of your concern and one to which I
don't subscribe.

Another possible approach might be not trying to save time by assuming
you know the answer before you understand the question.

> Your cleanup sets auth-sources to nil.  That would screw up my setup, at

No. 
Your setup would've been screwed when you failed to save state or
open a second session should that have been your primary concern. 

Setting auth-sources to nil was right proper and polite thing to do
given the context.

> least.  It's definitely not OK to just evaluate it; there were many

As you say. Not OK.

> other issues I don't have time to list and which are not really

If you knew Time as well as I do you wouldn't talk about wasting IT. 
It's HIM. 

> The patch is against Emacs CVS.  Let me know what you think.

Yes.

> MK> Is it reasonable for an hypothetical 'average Emacs user' to expect to
> MK> reliably debug/troubleshoot and configure an auth-source initiated
> MK> transaction config using the current 'auth regime' and expect a safe,
> MK> transparent, self cleaning, logging facility to aid in the process?

> Sure.  

There you have it.

> Now, what are you suggesting should be changed or improved?

Please see my post elsewhere on this thread vis a vis imap.el

> Can you give a specific example illustrating these problems, so I can

I have. 

s_P