Hey Tim.
I'm not sure if there's anything I might say to persuade you. 🤔
> I don't think there's a big cost to additional...
Yes, and that's the same argument from 7 years ago, and at other times in
between.
I grant that at each point an additional setting (or three) is the least
disruptive
I don't think there's a big cost to additional entries in
docs/ref/setttings.txt. I think it's far more common to browse that
document for needed functionality rather than to read the entire thing.
There are 23 DATABASES 'TEST' settings that probably aren't used very
frequently, yet I don't thi
Hey Tim,
Thanks for following up here.
Thanks also for the link to the previous discussion, very interesting.
So, looking at that, this was first discussed 7 years ago, when there were
(just)
6 email related settings.
I liked Jannis' initial reaction at the time: "Oh god, YES!!"
It didn'
I don't think settings create any harm. They seem cleaner than suggesting
subclassing the backend. If I'm understanding correctly, that would force
everyone to write something like:
class MySMTPBackend(smtp.EmailBackend)
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init__(*args, ke
Hi Michiel.
> On 25 Nov 2020, at 17:53, Michiel Beijen wrote:
>
> the old ones should be marked deprecated and
> probably should have been marked as such some Django releases ago.
There you are, super. 👍
Thank you for your input!
Kind Regards,
Carlton
--
You received this message becau
Hi Carlton,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:35 AM Carlton Gibson
wrote:
> Ticket 31885 Update SMTP Email Backend to use an SSLContext came in for which
> there's a PR adding `EMAIL_SSL_CAFILE` &co settings to match the existing
> EMAIL_USE_SSL &co settings.
>
> The PR looks fine in itself.
>
> I do
