On Tue, Feb 07 2023, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I think you might be right that people might rely on this after having >> discovered this undocumented interaction by accident. >> >> But I also think that the lack of questions about how to get imap-send's >> tunnel mode to work with auth helpers (at least I couldn't find any >> on-list), which is what you'd run into if you went by the documentation >> & were trying to get htat ot work, is a pretty good sign that this may >> be either entirely unused by anyone, or at best very obscure. > > I actually think the misconfiguration (from documentation's point of > view) Peff is taking advantage of is a behaviour you would naturally > expect, if you do not read the documentation but are merely aware of > the presence of .host and .tunnel and guess what these do. And > those who felt it was a natural design would probably not have asked > any question about it. Documenting the current behaviour better > would not hurt. Updating the behaviour and documenting the new > behaviour would not help anybody. Sure, we don't have to belabor the point. It's moot for a re-roll of this topic in any case (I won't be changing this behavior). But do I take it from the non-reply to what came afterwards that you're not interested in a (not a part of this topic) proposal for us to say "if you want that, arrange for ssh to do it for you", which would allow for finally dropping libssl as a non-trivial direct dependency? Or just that you didn't get to considering that?
