On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Marc Sherman wrote: > I think Marc is referring to ISPs who require AUTH over ssmtp for their > customers to submit mail. The customer could change to a different ISP, but > I'd imagine that changing MTAs is often easier.
Any ISP that *requires* their customers to use an obsolete protocol that was *never* a standard deserves to lost custom. Why aren't they supporting AUTH over smtp with STARTTLS? That is the standard, and has been for quite a few years now. I think all the major MTAs support it. And no doubt clients in due course will stop supporting ssmtp. Or am I indulging in wishful thinking here? Probably. The server support for ssmtp in Exim has expanded over time because the clients don't/won't change. > Philip, would you accept a patch if someone else were to implement client side > ssmtp? I try always to look at patches because I think if someone has gone to the trouble of submitting one, they deserve at least the courtesy of my looking at what they have done. I don't always accept them. Such a patch would need some careful specification. How would it interact with hosts_avoid_tls, hosts_avoid_esmtp, and hosts_require_tls, for instance? A hacked-up patch is likely to ignore that issue. I suppose I'd be being inconsistent not to accept a suitable patch. Grudgingly. :-) -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714. Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
