On Wed 12 Oct 2022 23:38, Junio C Hamano wrote: > not because it is common to use randomly numbered ports. Yes, good point! Also I feel the description might become a bit too bloated if we squeeze in the reference. Although I'm not against adding it as well, it will make things a lot clearer for sure. There's also the issue with the commonly found alternative port 587, which I feel might be better fixed by making the script test for it as well if the first default fails. I don't mind making a v4, but from the responses it seems there's no need? Thanks everybody for the input, helping me with the patches and for the fast responses, I really appreciate it!
