Roman V Isaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 03/03, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>> Right. MUAs can use 127.0.0.1:25 (and 127.0.0.1:110) by default. An ISP
>> can supply its favorite proxy program, including configuration,
>> directly to the users. Some benefits:
>> * Users won't have to type in server addresses.
>> * ISPs won't have to explain how to configure different MUAs.
>> * MUAs won't have to deal with different ISP authentication systems.
>> Today's proxies could provide authenticated mail submission for roaming
>> users. Tomorrow's proxies could support backup servers, faster message
>> injection, and maybe even strong encryption.
> Yeah, the only question is: WHO will write such proxy? ;-)
We did, for IMAP and POP. Was easier to write a proxy that spoke Kerberos
than it was to try to get vendors to support Kerberos. SMTP is even
simpler than those. (*Much* simpler than IMAP, which is a royal pain of a
protocol to write software for.)
> BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I never saw any good SMTP
> authentication schemes -- all of them send the password in clear :(
ssh tunneling should work fairly well. Also, there's no particular reason
why one couldn't wrap SMTP with a SASL negotiation, and have the proxy and
the server take care of that and then just expose regular SMTP to the
client.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
