Re: [Exim] Exim not downward compatible with older SMTP AUTH…

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 10:02:31 +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> Anyway, how can you do this compatibly? Any client that is following the
> standard may well *complain* about a broken server if you do that. How
> do you advertise several mechanisms? Do you say
>
> 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN CRAM-MD5
>
> or do you have to do
>
> 250-AUTH=LOGIN
> 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN CRAM-MD5

The latter is correct, and working with Netscape, Mozilla and Outlook.

> I sympathise, but I don't think I'm going to change my mind. Microsoft
> are making a lot of money out of OutLook. They should fix it.

They have fixed it in newer versions. But too much support is needed
to get our customers updating their clients... Therefore I applied
the patch.

> > As some Outlook and Netscape still need it, that
>
> I tested Exim with Netscape; it didn't seem to need a hack.

Netscape 4.75 (not Exim, but Hamster):

| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} < 220 SMTP-Server Classic Hamster Version 1.3 (Build
1.3.23.170) on laborratte.joernweber.de is ready.
| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} > EHLO joernweber.de
| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} < 250-laborratte.joernweber.de
| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} < 250-8BITMIME
| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} < 250-AUTH CRAM-SHA1 CRAM-MD5 LOGIN
| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} < 250 HELP
| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} > MAIL FROM:<email@???>
| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} < 250 OK
| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} > RCPT TO:<admin@???>
| 2002.06.08 09:16:21 {780} < 550 Permission denied for relaying

With patch:

| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} < 220 SMTP-Server Classic Hamster Version 1.3 (Build
1.3.23.170) on laborratte.joernweber.de is ready.
| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} > EHLO joernweber.de
| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} < 250-laborratte.joernweber.de
| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} < 250-8BITMIME

| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} < 250-AUTH=LOGIN

| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} < 250-AUTH CRAM-SHA1 CRAM-MD5 LOGIN
| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} < 250 HELP
| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} > AUTH LOGIN Sm9lcm4tV2ViZXI=
| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} > [...]
| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} < 334 UGFzc3dvcmQ6
| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} > [...]
| 2002.06.08 09:34:33 {21c} < 235 Authentication successful.

Indeed this is not documented anywhere, but as you can see not only
Outlook has problems.

Marc