On Sat, Feb 25 2017, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> i think you're making some unwarranted assumptions as to what "daemon
> mode" should exactly be.
True. I'll refrain to comment on the notification behavior at this
point.
>> >> But I can actually avoid running the re-index in the vast majority of
>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:11:47PM +0100, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24 2017, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >> I'd like to know if, for instance, there's a transient failure (such as
> >> connection error that I should not worry about).
> >>
> > really? your scriptlet below doesn't indicate th
On Fri, Feb 24 2017, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> I'd like to know if, for instance, there's a transient failure (such as
>> connection error that I should not worry about).
>>
> really? your scriptlet below doesn't indicate that you do. what would
> you use it for?
I don't want to post the entir
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 07:09:51PM +0100, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23 2017, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >> I see the use case when running as a daemon.
> >>
> >> You still need to specify the indexing status to the child process
> >> though. Would the same scheme be fine?
> >>
> > i'm not
On Thu, Feb 23 2017, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> I see the use case when running as a daemon.
>>
>> You still need to specify the indexing status to the child process
>> though. Would the same scheme be fine?
>>
> i'm not sure i understand the question ...
>
> i'd spawn one notifier per successf
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 03:10:28PM +0100, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23 2017, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:39:14AM +0100, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> >> As for the second patch, I'd like to contribute extended exit status
> >> codes. To avoid breaking old scripts, I'd add
On Thu, Feb 23 2017, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:39:14AM +0100, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
>> As for the second patch, I'd like to contribute extended exit status
>> codes. To avoid breaking old scripts, I'd add a new switch
>> (-e/--exit-code or something like it) that changes t
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:39:14AM +0100, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> As for the second patch, I'd like to contribute extended exit status
> codes. To avoid breaking old scripts, I'd add a new switch
> (-e/--exit-code or something like it) that changes the meaning of the
> exit status.
>
well, i'm still
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 03:37:11PM +0100, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> When a CertificateFile is provided, do not trust the system store by
> default, since this is not the expected behavior for X.509 certificates.
>
> SystemCertificates can still be explicitly allowed/disallowed to restore
> the previous
On Fri, Feb 17 2017, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> When a CertificateFile is provided, do not trust the system store by
> default, since this is not the expected behavior for X.509
> certificates.
Please let me know if this is the appropriate way to report a patch, and
if there's anything I missed that you
When a CertificateFile is provided, do not trust the system store by
default, since this is not the expected behavior for X.509 certificates.
SystemCertificates can still be explicitly allowed/disallowed to restore
the previous behavior.
---
NEWS | 3 +++
src/drv_imap.c | 2 +-
src/mb
11 matches
Mail list logo
