Subject: libc-client2002edebian: README.Debian doesn't explain about "I accept the risk" in c-client.cf
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:13:36 +0200
Package: libc-client2002edebian
Version: 7:2002edebian1-3
Severity: normal
Filed as normal, as the README.Debian currently has a half solution.
The postinst correctly adds 'I accept the risk' to /etc/c-client.cf, as
is apparantly required. However, this isn't at all document in
README.Debian, hence people manually changing the configuration won't
succeed.
By the way, isn't is possible to remove this weird requirement? Users
setting that option (should) know what they do, and if they don't
provide that 'I accept the risk', they get no hint whatsoever why their
configuration option isn't obeyed (the latter being a bug in itself
IMHO).
It goes without saying that removal of this requirement is preferred
with me.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[email protected]http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Subject: Re: Bug#266689: libc-client2002edebian: README.Debian doesn't explain
about "I accept the risk" in c-client.cf
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:54:33 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
severity 266689 wishlist
thanks
On 18-08-2004 20:13, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> The postinst correctly adds 'I accept the risk' to /etc/c-client.cf, as
> is apparantly required. However, this isn't at all document in
> README.Debian, hence people manually changing the configuration won't
> succeed.
README.Debian refers to the upstream imaprc.txt as the requirement is an
upstream one, and the very reason seems to be that only those who have
properly read and understood that document (which personally took me
quite some time and frustrated failed attempts) are worthy of messing
with the options.
I am currently preparing a new release that does not even add the stuff
in postinst any longer - it is too much of a hassle to maintain it
correctly.
> By the way, isn't is possible to remove this weird requirement? Users
> setting that option (should) know what they do, and if they don't
> provide that 'I accept the risk', they get no hint whatsoever why their
> configuration option isn't obeyed (the latter being a bug in itself
> IMHO).
You will have to discuss that with upstream. I do not myself believe it
possible to convince him, but please give it a try - I'd appreciate the
change as well.
Hereby lowered to wishlist.
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFB2U6Zn7DbMsAkQLgRAnftAJ96+EiG0qnp1fG/TrwqlQ1DOjw37wCffqpF
U2FpVbdjVBOTVD0IRE9j3OA=
=Qfn+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Christopher Taylor wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> since the upgrade to sarge, UW-pop3d won't allow Plain-text logins over
> a non-SSL connection anymore. I've tracked this down to a change in
> libc-client (which I think is sensible).
You can re-enable plaintext logins if you really want:
$ cat /etc/c-client.cf
I accept the risk
set disable-plaintext nil
$
Unfortunately, this is only half-way documented in
/usr/share/doc/libc-client2002edebian/README.Debian, see #266689. I
admit to not really have followed up yet to that bug, but my position
still is that if the 'set disabled-plaintext nil' is documented, the
other line required should be documented too.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[email protected] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained
from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.