On 8 July 2015 at 05:12, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On Jul 07, 2015, at 02:53 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
To me, the main question is whether you are sure that your proposal is the
right fix, or whether you might reasonably do something different (with the
new arguments) if changes were
On Jul 09, 2015, at 08:47 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
That strikes me as just the kind of
not-quite-as-finished-as-we-thought case that the beta cycle is
designed to flush out, so the minor further enhancement sounds like a
good idea to me.
Cool. RDM provided some good feedback in the review, so
Larry and others,
I'd like to bring your attention to issue #15014. This issue added arbitrary
auth methods to smtplib, which is a good thing. Implicitly though, a
regression was introduced w.r.t. RFC 4954's optional initial-response for the
AUTH command, for authentication methods that support
On Jul 07, 2015, at 02:53 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
To me, the main question is whether you are sure that your proposal is the
right fix, or whether you might reasonably do something different (with the
new arguments) if changes were reverted for the present and you two took more
time to think about
On 7/7/2015 1:52 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Larry and others,
I'd like to bring your attention to issue #15014. This issue added arbitrary
auth methods to smtplib, which is a good thing. Implicitly though, a
regression was introduced w.r.t. RFC 4954's optional initial-response for the
AUTH
