Re: [exim-dev] FW: Legacy EHLO AUTH responses (patch) 4.52
Andrew Johnson wrote: related to the AUTH= line (which seems to be deprecated now ?!). With help from this list last week, I managed to fix most of my broken users by adding a bogus authenticator to do the AUTH=LOGIN line I needed. This broke some other servers. It seems I need to put the AUTH=LOGIN line BEFORE my AUTH PLAIN LOGIN line - harder to do with the bogus What server stumbles over a AUTH=LOGIN line (especially one that comes after AUTH LOGIN...)? That sounds really broken (even though AUTH=LOGIN is not valid in a ESMTP greeting). And I wonder who needs this, more than six years after RFC 2554. But that's a different story... -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
RE: [exim-dev] FW: Legacy EHLO AUTH responses (patch) 4.52
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote: You wrote that the bogus authenticator didn't fix the behaviour, so this wouldn't be a question of elegance. Applying non-trivial patches is far less elegant than a little config change. I suppose I'd better say that I am not in favour of putting what is quite a large amount of code into the main source, just to support a very few hosts that use a doubly non-standard facility that was standardized at least 6 years ago. A non-trivial amount of documentation would also be needed. I say doubly non-standard because what I might call singly non-standard hosts seem to be handled by the configuration hack, so the hosts causing the problem under discussion are (apparently) even more non-standard. Hmm. I wonder what units are used to measure non-standardness? There's a Christmas competition question for you... :-) -- Philip HazelUniversity of Cambridge Computing Service, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714. Get the Exim 4 book:http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
RE: [exim-dev] FW: Legacy EHLO AUTH responses (patch) 4.52
From: Jakob Hirsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I understand that, I've been long enough in this business. I just wanted to know with which servers the behaviour described by you happens. Specifically it was older Novell Groupwise servers, though adding the AUTH= line after the AUTH line aparrently broke an old sendmail server. You wrote that the bogus authenticator didn't fix the behaviour, so this wouldn't be a question of elegance. Applying non-trivial patches is far less elegant than a little config change. It fixed some of the remote servers, I just consider coding up a non required authenticator to subvert an MTA into producing a required response less elegant than having the MTA software support it natively. Patch or otherwise. -Andy- -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
RE: [exim-dev] FW: Legacy EHLO AUTH responses (patch) 4.52
That's fair enough, it's just as I'd written it I thought I'd pass the code on anyway and get opinion. We have to patch Exim for DSN anyway, so this isn't much more work on top for us. -Andy- -Original Message- From: Philip Hazel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 December 2005 16:57 To: Jakob Hirsch Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; exim-dev@exim.org Subject: RE: [exim-dev] FW: Legacy EHLO AUTH responses (patch) 4.52 On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Jakob Hirsch wrote: You wrote that the bogus authenticator didn't fix the behaviour, so this wouldn't be a question of elegance. Applying non-trivial patches is far less elegant than a little config change. I suppose I'd better say that I am not in favour of putting what is quite a large amount of code into the main source, just to support a very few hosts that use a doubly non-standard facility that was standardized at least 6 years ago. A non-trivial amount of documentation would also be needed. I say doubly non-standard because what I might call singly non-standard hosts seem to be handled by the configuration hack, so the hosts causing the problem under discussion are (apparently) even more non-standard. Hmm. I wonder what units are used to measure non-standardness? There's a Christmas competition question for you... :-) -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
