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
On 8 July 2015 at 05:12, Barry Warsaw 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 reverted for
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 ab
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 comman
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
