Randall Gellens wrote:
The patch looks useful.
I use it, along with my own modifications to it. I just posted some
hasty updates attempting to encompass your suggestionss below.
http://www.jmaimon.com/qpopper
http://www.jmaimon.com/qpopper/patches/happymail-sleep-seconds.pl6.408.patch
The web page says it uses the [AUTH] response code. A quick glance at
the patch shows it using either a [HAPPYMAIL] response code or no
response code.
Were these choices deliberate?
RFC 2449 and 3206 specify that [AUTH] indicates a problem specifically
with the user's credentials, and thus the client should prompt for a new
password.
outlook express 6something prompts either way. This is the source of the
real pain.
The [LOGIN-DELAY] response code is specified to inform the client that
the login interval is too short. So, I'd suggest that the patch include
the [LOGIN-DELAY] response code in its error message instead of
[HAPPYMAIL] (which is non-standard) or no response code.
MoZt MAY respect this, initial eyeball test looked encouraging.
Also, I think it would be very friendly (and way cool) for the patch to
include the LOGIN-DELAY response to the CAPA command. In authenticated
state it can include the specific login-delay that will be enforced for
the user.
I read rfc2449 as stating the unauthenticated CAPA should append USER,
which I have done.
You can also set the LOGIN-DELAY response to CAPA using the
announce-login-delay option.
But qpopper doesnt support enforcing it, correct? Still its an overlap
in design between it and the patch.
