[tpop3d-discuss] TLS status

[Chris Lightfoot]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:08:22PM +0100, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:55:28PM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:50:56PM +0100, Paul Makepeace wrote:
    [...]
> > > And yet when I telnet to 995 I get intelligible text which is not what
> > > I'd expect from an "immediate" connection.
> > 
> > No, that's what you should expect -- tpop3d is sending the
> > first bit of TLS negotiation bumf, which is not human
> 
> I did say /intelligible/, i.e. I can read it, viz:

ach, I should actually read this stuff before replying to
it :)

> I noticed that if tpop3d can't bind to all its ports it is merely a
> warning not an error and the daemon doesn't exit. I was surprised by
> this as I'd generally treat failure to bind as a hard error; is this
> intentional?

Um. Difficult question. On the one hand I can imagine
somebody running it to listen on a zillion different
interfaces; if one fails, you don't want to lose service
for everybody else. Equally, if you have (say) two
listeners, you'd probably want it to fail if either can't
bind. Since nobody actually reads the log messages anyway
(see mailing list messages passim...) I don't think it
makes much difference what it does....

-- 
``The whole purpose of places like Starbucks is for people with no decision
  making ability to make six decisions just to buy one cup of coffee.''