Re: Update on gmime in balsa + some TLS comments
- From: Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>
- To: balsa-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Update on gmime in balsa + some TLS comments
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:17:16 +0100
On 2003.09.03 17:03, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:22:11, Pawel Salek wrote:
>>> . I guess you stole libesmtp siobufs cause they give you ssl and
>>> network goodness but I don't enjoy having 2 copies of it linked
>>> into balsa. this needs some thinking :)
>> This is probably not worth to optimize at this stage.
> glib has some IO stuff (gmime uses it iirc). I'd say this would be a
> correcter thing to use but I won't compromise to this statment till I
> have an harder look at it :)
maybe, maybe not - though since I wrote siobufs I'm biased. The reason
libESMTP didn't use glib was primarily portability and few dependencies
and of slightly lesser importance small footprint. Anyway I'm quite
flattered that the code has been "stolen".
I've already used the siobufs code elsewhere and have been able to do
so quite easily, which suggests the API is about right for generic use.
Shortly I will need to write a pop3 client (libPOP3?) for another
project so it seems like it might be an idea to split libESMTP into
two. This shouldn't affect programs using just the libESMTP api but
will be an issue for those adventurous enough to use the lower layers.
As always any and all comments are welcome.
On SSL/TLS. After this issue having lain dormant for some time it has
suddenly become a hot topic again. I suggest reading the substantive
comments in smtp-tls.c in the libESMTP source. These give some idea of
why I did things the way I did and of uncertainties regarding use of
OpenSSL. The current implementation seems to be about right for those
who have been able to use it and as there has been no comment for some
time I left things as they were. Seems like now is the time to revisit
this. Critique of the existing code would be most appreciated,
especially from anyone who knows the OpenSSL API.
] [Thread Prev