>woe... I said, "as much as possible" --- I mean, let's remove things >that truly *NOBODY* uses.
Fair enough; I guess when you said "as much as possible", I started to get worried. I mean, it is certainly POSSIBLE to remove POP support from inc; if the criteria is only things that people don't use, then I'm fine with that. >I *WANT* POP support in inc --- but I'm cool if we get "modern" POP >interface by having inc popen(3) fetchmail, or link against it's >library, if that's more sane than fixing the code that's there to do >stuff like POP/SSL. Well, I can now speak from experience that adding TLS support to our current code is not terrible. Despite what others had thought, it was actually pretty straightforward, even with all of the code in place to do SASL encryption. A quick glance at uip/popsbr.c leads me to believe that adding similar TLS code to the POP library would be relatively simple. Someone just has to do it, and now they even have example code to crib from. I might do it if I get some free time, but certainly someone else can do it probably a lot sooner than I can. Or if someone wants to modify the pop code to popen() fetchmail, I'm alright with that as well. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
