Re: IMAPS problems...

[Toralf Lund <toralf kscanners com>]

On 2001.08.21 16:18 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> 
> On 2001.08.21 15:09:13 +0100 Toralf Lund wrote:
> > Some problems that started occurring after the recent introduction of
> IMAPS
> > support:
> > 
> > 1. A message stating that the certificate was accepted, but not
> verified
> > keeps popping up from time-to-time.
> 
> Thats cause either your ssl setup is wrong (openssl) or cause the
> certificate
> wasn't properly signed (and is bad).
> 
> > 2. The message occurs even when IMAPS is NOT enabled for any servers.
> that's cause the server has TLS, and balsa defaults to using TLS now.
> atm the only way of disabling TLS is not compiling with ssl. i hardcoded
> it "on" cause a) to see what breaks b) cause i didn't have time to do the
> GUI config stuff properly.
Ahh. I'd never noticed the TLS support, or even the distinction between SSL
and TLS, since our other mail clients use SSL only.

So enabling SSL in the config would mean using SSL _and_ TLS, which is
fairly meaningless, right?
> 
> > 3. Mail check started using a long time again, or perhaps it hangs
> > completely; I'm too impatient right now to find out which.
> > 
> prolly caused by TLS. compile --without-ssl and see if it gets better
> 
> > 1.) Is probably not an error, since I'm using a temporary certificate
> right
> > now. A better way of handling this would be nice though; i.e. I should
> be
> > allowed to acknowledge the message once an for all (yes, I _will_
> purchase
> > a certificate real soon now...) 2.) however, indicates that there is
> > something wrong with the IMAPS config handling, while 3.) could be
> caused
> > by the two others (i.e. the warning message or info box may somehow
> cause a
> > hang.)
> > 
> 
> when i posted to the list annoncing tls/ssl now actually does something 
> i mentioned all 1) and 2).
Didn't notice that, either. Sorry.

 you can just tell balsa to send errors to
> stderr 
> instead of list if you don't want the list poping up. it's an error cause
> 
> accepting that certificates does break the concept of "security" but
> there 
> wasn't a better way to do it at the time.
I think the current solution is quite acceptable. At least, the ability to
test the setup with self-signed certificates is valuable, so denying access
would not be a good solution.

Anyhow, I think the mail check actually segfaults, based on the stack trace
included below - the hang is caused by the fork()/exec() issues discussed
elsewhere (Bug 59305)

#0  0x400df8a5 in __sigsuspend (set=0x4104e420)
    at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sigsuspend.c:45
#1  0x404450d9 in __pthread_wait_for_restart_signal (self=0x4104fc00)
    at pthread.c:934
#2  0x40444a2f in __pthread_kill_other_threads_np () at restart.h:34
#3  0x4016ca0a in __execve (file=0x402a87c3 "/usr/bin/gnome_segv", 
    argv=0x4104e640, envp=0xbffff20c) at
../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/execve.c:42
#4  0x4016cc25 in execl (path=0x402a87c3 "/usr/bin/gnome_segv", 
    arg=0x402a87c3 "/usr/bin/gnome_segv") at execl.c:74
#5  0x40254f0d in gnome_segv_handle () from /usr/lib/libgnomeui.so.32
#6  0x40445935 in pthread_sighandler (signo=11, ctx=
      {gs = 23, __gsh = 0, fs = 0, __fsh = 0, es = 43, __esh = 0, ds = 43,
__dsh = 0, edi = 135997304, esi = 135917804, ebp = 1090845268, esp =
1090845240, ebx = 1080702740, edx = 135252169, ecx = 0, eax = 135658480,
trapno = 14, err = 4, eip = 1075014824, cs = 35, __csh = 0, eflags = 66054,
esp_at_signal = 1090845240, ss = 43, __ssh = 0, fpstate = 0x4104f7b8,
oldmask = 2147483648, cr2 = 0})
    at signals.c:97
#7  <signal handler called>
#8  0x40136ca8 in strcmp () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6

> 
> -- 
> Carlos Morgado - chbm(at)chbm(dot)nu - http://chbm.nu/ -- gpgkey:
> 0x1FC57F0A
> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5
> 7F0A
> Software is like sex; it's better when it's free. - Linus Torvalds
> 
> _______________________________________________
> balsa-list mailing list
> balsa-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/balsa-list
>