On Mo, Apr 19, 2004 at 02:12:08 +0100, Philip Hazel <ph10@???> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Brent Russell Langille wrote:
>
> > > Because it has not followed the RFC. Exim looks for what the RFC says it
> > > should look for, namely
> > >
> > > 250-AUTH LOGIN
> > >
> > > Note the crucial difference.
>
> > i would never have found that. thank you very much. is there any thing i
> > can do about this?
>
> The output you showed contained
>
> 250-AUTH
> 250-AUTH=LOGIN
>
> I know that some MTAs output sequences like
>
> 250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN ...
> 250-AUTH=LOGIN
>
> in order to support both standard-conforming and some non-standard
> clients. (The = format was used by some clients at one time; perhaps
> this MTA is trying to support such clients.) Maybe the MTA you are
> dealing with is trying to do that, but is misconfigured? You could try
> contacting its administrator.
I think the question is:
Can exim be forced to authentificate, even if the remote peer doesn't
announce smtp-auth capability?
