On 5/13/06 6:28 AM, "Tony Finch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a third authentication mechanism that is as common as PLAIN and > LOGIN? Perhaps SPA if you are using Exim in a Windows environment, but I > would prefer to have a sample working config from someone who uses it for > real before I put it in the default config. We offer all of SPA, CRAM-MD5, PLAIN, and LOGIN. Given that choice, Eudora and Thunderbird (at least) will use CRAM (just now verified for Thunderbird). We concluded--probably erroneously--when adding SPA to the list that Outlook Express would not use SPA unless it was advertised prior to the plain text alternatives. Our conclusion was based on the fact (or belief, anyhow) that the only thing changed in the configuration file between the won't-do-SPA state and the happily-doing-SPA state was to move the SPA authenticator from last to first in the collection of autenticators. Our configuration isn't interesting for default config file use, probably, since we retrieve passwords from LDAP. And because of the need for plain text passwords for CRAM, I would be dubious about including it in the default configuration other than as a comment pointing out its existence and that restriction and pointing to its place in the manual. --John -- ## 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/
