Bugzilla

> If IMAP doesn't work, why show it at all? You want to provide a non-working option? Or you want the user to confirm that it really doesn't work?

Yes, exactly, that was one of the thoughts I had.
Another was being "tactful". 
Lastly, I'd need to remove POP3 as well, because I know that POP3 will not be enabled in Office365, if IMAP is disabled, because I've seen the policy setting available to Office365 admins that disable IMAP, and I know they also disable POP3. I don't want to actively test whether POP3 works in the code, because there's no point and it would actually be actively harmful to do so in some cases. But I don't know how this would be regarded by the reviewers, it might be a point of discussion, and I just wanted this to go smoothly, so I tried to leave this question out of the patch.

> > Seems strange to demonstrate it that way around, but what do I know?

> What did Neil mean here?

I asked him offline and he was just referring to the test data. He was expecting me to showcase with outlook.com, and I showcased with Office365. It was not referring to the patch itself.

@Jörg: Given that you're in here anyway: If you (or anybody else) could approve this, I'd be grateful. We can land this ourselves, if you prefer to not touch a commandline and hg and patches during your well-deserved vacation.

> If IMAP doesn't work, why show it at all? You want to provide a non-working option? Or you want the user to confirm that it really doesn't work?

Yes, exactly, that was one of the thoughts I had.
Another was being "tactful". 
Lastly, I'd need to remove POP3 as well, because I know that POP3 will not be enabled in Office365, if IMAP is disabled, because I've seen the policy setting available to Office365 admins that disable IMAP, and I know they also disable POP3. I don't want to actively test whether POP3 works with a login attempt, because there's no point and it would actually be actively harmful to do so in some cases. But I don't know how this would be regarded by the reviewers, it might be a point of discussion, and I just wanted this to go smoothly, so I tried to leave this question out of the patch.

> > Seems strange to demonstrate it that way around, but what do I know?

> What did Neil mean here?

I asked him offline and he was just referring to the test data. He was expecting me to showcase with outlook.com, and I showcased with Office365. It was not referring to the patch itself.

@Jörg: Given that you're in here anyway: If you (or anybody else) could approve this, I'd be grateful. We can land this ourselves, if you prefer to not touch a commandline and hg and patches during your well-deserved vacation.

> If IMAP doesn't work, why show it at all? You want to provide a non-working option? Or you want the user to confirm that it really doesn't work?

Yes, exactly, that was one of the thoughts I had.
Another was being "tactful". 
Lastly, I'd need to remove POP3 as well, because I know that POP3 will not be enabled in Office365, if IMAP is disabled, because I've seen the policy setting available to Office365 admins that disable IMAP, and I know they also disable POP3. I don't want to actively test whether POP3 works with a second login attempt, because there's no point and it would actually be actively harmful to do so in some cases. But I don't know how this would be regarded by the reviewers, it might be a point of discussion, and I just wanted this to go smoothly, so I tried to leave this question out of the patch.

> > Seems strange to demonstrate it that way around, but what do I know?

> What did Neil mean here?

I asked him offline and he was just referring to the test data. He was expecting me to showcase with outlook.com, and I showcased with Office365. It was not referring to the patch itself.

@Jörg: Given that you're in here anyway: If you (or anybody else) could approve this, I'd be grateful. We can land this ourselves, if you prefer to not touch a commandline and hg and patches during your well-deserved vacation.

> If IMAP doesn't work, why show it at all? You want to provide a non-working option? Or you want the user to confirm that it really doesn't work?

Yes, exactly, that was one of the thoughts I had.
Another was being "tactful". 
Lastly, I'd need to remove POP3 as well, because I know that POP3 will not be enabled in Office365, if IMAP is disabled, because I've seen the policy setting available to Office365 admins that disable IMAP, and I know they also disable POP3. I don't want to actively test whether POP3 works with a second login attempt, because there's no point and it would actually be actively harmful to do so in some cases. But I don't know how this would be regarded by the reviewers, it might be a point of discussion, and I just wanted this to go smoothly, so I tried to leave this question out of the patch.

> > Seems strange to demonstrate it that way around, but what do I know?

> What did Neil mean here?

I asked him offline and he was just referring to the test data. He was expecting me to showcase with outlook.com, and I showcased with Office365. So, based on that, my test autoconfig now also has such a fallback config for outlook.com. It was not referring to the patch itself.

@Jörg: Given that you're in here anyway: If you (or anybody else) could approve this, I'd be grateful. We can land this ourselves, if you prefer to not touch a commandline and hg and patches during your well-deserved vacation.

> If IMAP doesn't work, why show it at all? You want to provide a non-working option? Or you want the user to confirm that it really doesn't work?

Yes, exactly, that was one of the thoughts I had.
Another was being "tactful". 
Lastly, I'd need to remove POP3 as well, because I know that POP3 will not be enabled in Office365, if IMAP is disabled, because I've seen the policy setting available to Office365 admins that disable IMAP, and I know they also disable POP3. I don't want to actively test whether POP3 works with a second login attempt, because there's no point and it would actually be actively harmful to do so in some cases. But I don't know how this would be regarded by the reviewers, it might be a point of discussion, and I just wanted this to go smoothly, so I tried to leave this question out of the patch.

> > Seems strange to demonstrate it that way around, but what do I know?

> What did Neil mean here?

I asked him offline and he was just referring to the test data. He was expecting me to showcase with outlook.com, and I showcased with Office365. So, based on that, my test autoconfig now also has such a fallback config for outlook.com. The comment was not referring to the patch itself.

@Jörg: Given that you're in here anyway: If you (or anybody else) could approve this, I'd be grateful. We can land this ourselves, if you prefer to not touch a commandline and hg and patches during your well-deserved vacation.