After reading this thread, IMHO (not IMO) Juergen, Norman and Stefano
are right.
I would simply put a *strong* comment in config.xml stating that SMTP
AUTH is much safer and the way to go, but give the feature possibly with
the ip vs{ ip,id}options choice.
BTW, I would put SMTP AUTH "anounce
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Something more important: I am -1 on the current code. The technical
justification for vetoing this change is that we are tracking only the IP
address. One person on a non-routable subnet authenticates via POP3 or
IMAP, and everyone else going through the same gateway rou
Hi,
See my previous post..
bye
Norman
Am Sonntag, den 23.07.2006, 22:41 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> > POP3 before SMTP was a quick hack because POP3 already had authentication,
> > and SMTP didn't have it (at the time). Even sites, such as ORDB, that
> > recommend POP3 before SMTP say that
Ho Noel,
Am Sonntag, den 23.07.2006, 19:27 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> Norman wrote:
>
> > schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> > > There are many ways to handle RoamingUsers. POPBeforeSMTP is at
> > > least descriptive.
>
> > I called it RoaminUsersHandler cause we could easly use it for
> > IMAPBe
Hi Noel,
Am Montag, 24. Juli 2006 04:15 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> And in ancient days, almost all mail servers were open relays. And we also
> didn't used to have so many hotels, Internet cafes, offices, even some
> service providers, using non-routable subnets and a single gateway IP. But
> wi
> POP3 before SMTP was a quick hack because POP3 already had authentication,
> and SMTP didn't have it (at the time). Even sites, such as ORDB, that
> recommend POP3 before SMTP say that STMP AUTH would be preferable.
Sendmail says "[SMTP AUTH] is useful for roaming users and can replace
POP-befo
Jürgen Hoffmann wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman:
> > Something more important: I am -1 on the current code. The technical
> > justification for vetoing this change is that we are tracking only the
> > IP address. One person on a non-routable subnet authenticates via POP3
> > or IMAP, and everyone else
Hi,
Am Montag, 24. Juli 2006 01:27 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> Something more important: I am -1 on the current code. The technical
> justification for vetoing this change is that we are tracking only the IP
> address. One person on a non-routable subnet authenticates via POP3 or
> IMAP, and ever
Norman wrote:
> schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> > There are many ways to handle RoamingUsers. POPBeforeSMTP is at
> > least descriptive.
> I called it RoaminUsersHandler cause we could easly use it for
> IMAPBeforeSMTP if imap is included. So i thought this "general"
> name is the best.
Too general.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
3) We start having a little mess with authorized users, relaying
allowed, authorized networks and how handlers manage this. Let's
keep in mind this and maybe we'll find a clean solution to this.
I don't disagree. What if anything do you have in mind at this time?
Noth
Am Sonntag, den 23.07.2006, 11:55 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> > I don't know if "RoamingUsers" is better or worst than "PopBeforeSmtp":
> > what do ther thinks?
>
> There are many ways to handle RoamingUsers. POPBeforeSMTP is at least
> descriptive.
I called it RoaminUsersHandler cause we
> I don't know if "RoamingUsers" is better or worst than "PopBeforeSmtp":
> what do ther thinks?
There are many ways to handle RoamingUsers. POPBeforeSMTP is at least
descriptive.
> 2) Before 3.0 I would like to find a better solution than hardcoding the
> check in PassCmdHandler (maybe suppo
12 matches
Mail list logo
