On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, John Robinson wrote:
> So... before I go seriously wading in and getting my hands mucky (though
> actually the code looks pretty tidy, clean and polished!), may I ask those
> people here who are experienced with the code, would it be very difficult
> to have the authenticators set a variable along the lines of auth_attempted
> which could be inspected in the ACLs?
No. I have in fact added this to the Wish List, but of course you'll get
it quicker if you do it yourself. :-)
> And similarly, how about getting an
> ACL to send a different numeric response?
That would be a lot harder. Why do you want to? 550 seems to be the most
reasonable response:
550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
(e.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected
for policy reasons)
Your situation seems to be the last of those.
> For this particular case though, I'd just rather give what (to me) would
> seem to be the more appropriate response - OK they already ignored what
> they've been told (or their MUA did) but there couldn't be any harm telling
> them again. I guess if more sites start embracing SMTP AUTH, this might
> become useful more widely (than just me). If it's just an alternate text
> message with a 550 response, it's not even breaking RFC 2554 either.
That seems reasonable, but I'm cynical enough to suspect that it won't
make a blind bit of difference because people don't read these messages
(even when their MUA shows them to them).
Philip
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
