Re: [exim] authenticate * not work

Thanks a lot.

> This part shows that Cisco PIX SMTP fixup is not running for this
> connection. That stuff only comes out for ESMTP, not for SMTP, which the PIX fix up forces.
sorry, i don't quite understand. Can you be more specific which party
shows SMTP fixup is NOT running?


> SMTP>> 250-mail3.techsoft.com.hk Hello yckun202214.netvigator.com
> [219.76.52.214]
> 250-SIZE 5242880
> 250-PIPELINING
> 250-AUTH PLAIN CRAM-MD5
> 250 HELP
>
> Did this connection go through the PIX? (An earlier message pretty clearly
> showed that PIX SMTP fixup was on.)
>
> Do I remember that the client MUA in your tests is Microsoft Outlook or
> Outlook Express? If so, you need to advertise AUTH LOGIN, too. (As usual,
> Microsoft "improves" on published standards.) Meaning you need to introduce
> another authenticator for AUTH LOGIN. It's almost the same, and discussed
> in the Exim spec.

i tried Mozilla Thunderbird as well. It won't work if there's NO LOGIN
authenticator.
am i right that AUTH LOGIN is not only required by MS O/OE, but also
others, in this case, thunderbird??

why don't the MUA use AUTH PLAIN or AUTH CRAM-MD5 that i advertise??


> shows that the client didn't try to authenticate (authentication comes
> between the end of the extensions list and the MAIL FROM: command) which
> would explain why the authenticated = * test failed.

i'm a bit confused.
The sequence i thought was:
ehlo domain.tld
auth { cram-md5, login }
mail from: sender
rcpt to: recipient
data
.

am i correct??



> Or, you could compile with SPA support and write an authenticator for that.
> SPA is what Microsoft does instead of CRAM-MD5 (or CRAM-anything else).
> Also discussed in the spec.

i implement an LOGIN authenticator and it works now.
BUT ONLY IF i check the box that smtp require password.

i remember i needn't to do it(check "smtp requires password")
when using OE / thunderbird to relay thru the qmail.
can anybody explain me about this?

> From here, I can't check on whether PIX SMTP fixup is on or not:
>
> telnet 219.76.52.214 25
> Trying 219.76.52.214...
> telnet: connect to address 219.76.52.214: No route to host
> telnet: Unable to connect to remote host
>
> That result was from my desktop machine...
> From one of our outbound mail servers I get
> telnet 219.76.52.214 25
> Trying 219.76.52.214...
> telnet: connect to address 219.76.52.214: Connection timed out
>
> (Probably we're firewalled there because you aren't ready yet for the world,
> which is fine.)
219.76.52.214 is the IP i use while connecting with modem.

what makes you think that it's the IP of my firewall? Due to my
mis-configuration / wrong method of testing??