From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCE42047F for ; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 21:18:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752205AbdHDVSY (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:18:24 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54708 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752068AbdHDVSX (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:18:23 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89899A46EB; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:18:15 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=rfl3MLJ92uNos2JTAzjYcPRttEA=; b=CXgtO0 /J5t8bEVwVCgqr3DauDuxJG6XU4KAlC22Q1ohkwq7xiBdZ0wY01aLIwYgPMOA17E lRCXyNIO/+NsGL5REuyJ6lRsrLKFkhRn7+x0FHQzfBkmuNOvoNzuomWfhjuTAjQP pMiNVEPmE9/Drs7MrRZlEYgQ5IAVMhChEk8Y8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=OKOZz6QwCQlN/AJ+tI6dSpCj6Ao4Y9l7 9nH9NHAfxZ+b8XRziLtqfCa3JK/6Hl/zVMRKnPgWiCAUrN8fplRjWr8/hRYot0MT cTPz3RMyv47wUVqU+DL5cC8CdK0OJOPWcaJpjfzSajeu7+6uLNypF+POKtF11vfg 2/2c+l1fG7w= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8181AA46EA; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:18:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0570A46E9; Fri, 4 Aug 2017 17:18:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Andreas Schwab , Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] imap-send: escape backslash in password References: <58b783d6-c024-4491-2f88-edfb9c43c55c@morey-chaisemartin.com> <87bmnvktee.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <20170804202255.3oia7ivsoa6vu4me@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:18:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170804202255.3oia7ivsoa6vu4me@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:22:55 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6D81B9B8-795A-11E7-AFFD-FE4B1A68708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > It's been a long time since I've done anything with IMAP, but I think > another alternative would be to send it as a "literal", like: > > {6} > foobar > > That's relatively easy to format correctly using the current printf > specifiers that imap_exec() takes. Though as I said elsewhere in the > thread, perhaps imap_exec() should provide a different interface. Yes, I was scanning the RFC and came to the same conclusion ;-) > I also think it might be reasonable to scrap all of this ad-hoc imap > code in favor of curl, which already gets these cases right. We already > have a curl-backed implementation. I think we just left the old code out > of conservatism. But it seems somewhat buggy and unmaintained, and I > wonder if we aren't better off to simply encourage people to install > curl. That is a very attractive direction to go in, especially in the mid to longer term. Perhaps we declare that the ad-hoc hardcoded imap is deprecated in the next cycle and drop the support by the end of this year?