On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 11:13:11AM +0000, Yao Zi wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 10:46:07AM +0000, Crystal Kolipe via Mutt-dev wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 09:16:17AM +0000, Yao Zi via Mutt-dev wrote:
> > > Let's stop bailing out early when failing to decode the first SASL
> > > challenge as base64. Instead, print a debug message and then try to
> > > continue the authentication process for better compatibility with these
> > > quirky service providers.
> >
> > This version of the patch looks OK to me, but should we really log exactly
> > the
> > same error message when ignoring the initial non-compliant server response
> > that we log when erroring out on a subsequent failure?
> >
> > Could we either skip logging the error altogether in the first case or
> > change
> > the text to a warning, to avoid potential confusion in future bug reports?
>
> I think the message ("pop_auth_sasl: error base64-decoding server
> response") is enough to find out what's happening as long as
> you search it through the codebase (and then find the comment added in
> this patch). So I don't think it would cause confusion in future bug
> reports.
>
> If you still think it's important to make handling of the initial
> non-compliant challenges stand out, I'd prefer to add an additional
> debug message or mutt_message() for it. It's better to describe what's
> happening clearly than saying nothing :)
I don't have a strong opinion on it, so it's fine by me either way.
If nobody else wants to change the comments lets just keep it as is.
