From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Robert Pluim Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Committing new smtpmail.el later tonight Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:50:44 +0200 Organization: not if I can help it Message-ID: References: <8739jogwf9.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87lix9eknu.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <878vt52ykv.fsf@lifelogs.com> <878vt25tbf.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87zklbnet1.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83sjr2vaqk.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1308757888 6515 80.91.229.12 (22 Jun 2011 15:51:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:51:28 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 22 17:51:25 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QZPi8-0006Mg-ER for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:51:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59949 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZPi7-0004Fa-CS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:51:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59845) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZPhl-0004El-Qt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:51:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZPhh-0005ML-KJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:51:01 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:37964) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QZPhg-0005M4-P6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:50:57 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QZPhf-00063y-Iv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:50:55 +0200 Original-Received: from lns-bzn-49f-81-56-191-143.adsl.proxad.net ([81.56.191.143]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:50:55 +0200 Original-Received: from rpluim by lns-bzn-49f-81-56-191-143.adsl.proxad.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:50:55 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lns-bzn-49f-81-56-191-143.adsl.proxad.net Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (cygwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:EOX4w7b8e5LfJ8Z4gKdUflgMTMw= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:140854 Archived-At: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> Why do we have to have this incompatibility? Why cannot >> smtpmail-auth-credentials continue be supported, in addition to the >> new ~/.authinfo? E.g., note the value of the variable and >> automatically write ~/.authinfo? > > I can (re-)implement that. > > However, I thought it might make more sense to unconfuse the entire > credential situations. In the past, all things that have required auth > of some kind have used their own methods for doing that, and by making a > "clean break", I think things might be slightly less confusing for the > user. > > And it's not like the user has to know about this beforehand. > smtpmail.el will prompt for the user name and password, so things won't > mysteriously stop working totally. > > If people feel that it would make more sense to still support > `smtpmail-auth-credentials', I'll put that back in there again. No, what you've done is better than the old situation, let's not overdo the backwards compatibility. Robert