On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> These days I do think it's reasonable to expect openssl to be present. But > not the CMU SASL libraries. My thought has always been that we should > include our own bare-bones SASL implementation, sufficient to allow CRAM-MD5 > and PLAIN (after a successful TLS negotiation). This would certainly cover > off the vast majority of cases where MH needs to talk to an SMTP or > Submission server. I'm not sure what the state of the art is in POP servers, > as I haven't used one in a couple of decades. To clarify, I'm not suggesting dropping the CMU SASL support. What I meant to say is that we should include a light weight SASL implementation as I described that would be built iff CMU SASL support was not enabled in the build. --lyndon
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
