Re: IMAP OAUTHBEARER patch

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 03:12:45PM -0700, Brandon Long wrote: > Hey mutt-dev, long time no see. > > Gmail supports RFC 7628 for using OAUTH with IMAP, and they really don't > like you using password based auth. You can still enable "less secure > apps" and then generate an application specific

IMAP OAUTHBEARER patch

Hey mutt-dev, long time no see. Gmail supports RFC 7628 for using OAUTH with IMAP, and they really don't like you using password based auth. You can still enable "less secure apps" and then generate an application specific password, but I figured it was time to support it. Being mutt, I punted

Re: inotify polling in master branch

On 2018-06-11 10:30:27 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I think that there is a race condition with the inotify code: the > inotify event is obtained while the mailbox hasn't been completely > updated, so that one doesn't get the latest messages. What might > happen is that the directory is being

Re: inotify polling in master branch

On 2018-06-11 20:46:51 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:28:09AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-06-11 10:30:27 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2018-06-11 10:18:07 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 04:00:55AM +0200, Vincent

Re: encrypt also to "myself": (was: My patch was not accepted in 2009)

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, Bertram Scharpf wrote: > It was about encryption: If I write a > message, then encrypt it for the recipient and keep just the > encrypted copy, I will later not be able to read what I > wrote myself. I suggested an option that added myself to the > recipients list when

Re: inotify polling in master branch

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:28:09AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-06-11 10:30:27 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-06-11 10:18:07 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 04:00:55AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > On 2018-06-11 08:07:22 +0800, Kevin J.

My patch was not accepted in 2009

Hello, almost nine years ago I suggested an enhancement to Mutt and then wrote a patch. It was about encryption: If I write a message, then encrypt it for the recipient and keep just the encrypted copy, I will later not be able to read what I wrote myself. I suggested an option that added myself

Re: inotify polling in master branch

I've reported the bug on the BTS: https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/issues/44 -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: inotify polling in master branch

On 2018-06-11 10:30:27 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-06-11 10:18:07 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 04:00:55AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2018-06-11 08:07:22 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > > What if instead, we changed the code from a ">"

Re: inotify polling in master branch

On 2018-06-11 10:18:07 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 04:00:55AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-06-11 08:07:22 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > What if instead, we changed the code from a ">" comparison to a "!=" > > > comparison. This would force a