Ken Murchison writes:
Mark Crispin wrote:
Yet more proof that the SASL specifications as currently constituted are too complex, and why IMAP should not add initial-response until the SASL specifications are fixed.
Or its more proof that M$ doesn't care about specs and choose to [re]define then as they see fit.
Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance/release pressure/lack of time/blah/blah. So far, every Microsoft programmer I've spoken to seemed to try hard. (I'm not saying they succeed, but I _am_ saying they don't seem a malicious bunch.)
I didn't mean to imply that anything that doesn't meet the specs was done maliciously by the programmers (over frustration from replying to Outlook bug emails). I have no knowledge that any mistakes are anything other than just simple mistakes.
However, if there is/was any question about the specs, there are mailing lists that can be contacted for clarification. Interop testing could be done with non-MS products. The CMU SASL library comes with test harnesses which can be used for testing. There are at least 2 major MTAs (sendmail, postfix) which use CMU SASL that could have been consulted for comparison.
-- Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 --PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
