On 2 Jun 2005 at 18:21, John W. Baxter wrote about
"Re: [exim] Client Authentication":
| On 6/2/05 4:49 PM, "Fred Viles" <fv+exim@???> wrote:
|...
| The client seems to be Postfix.
I could be misreading, of course, but I inferred the OP is writing
his own client, and had tested it against a Postfix server.
| If so, it's not broken,
AFAIK, a client that sends a command spelled "AUTH LOGIN PLAIN"
(which is what the OP said his client sends), or "AUTH PLAIN LOGIN"
(which is what he tried in the telnet session he posted), is broken.
No ifs, ands, or buts.
| it's just using a
| different authentication system: SASL.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. By definition (RFC-2554), SMTP
AUTH is a "profile" of SASL (RFC-2222), meaning it is a
syntax for transporting SASL authentication mechanisms in an SMTP
session. PLAIN and CRAM-MD5 are SASL mechanisms (but not LOGIN).
| Unfortunately, that means I can't have my Mac OS X machine authenticate with
| our servers (since we don't--yet--offer SASL), if I run the message through
| the local Postfix.
According to <
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sasl-mechanisms>,
there's no SASL mechanism named "SASL". You seem to be using the
term SASL in some way unrelated to RFC-2222, so I don't understand
what you're trying to say about SMTP.
Postfix doesn't support standard SMTP AUTH as a client?
|...
- Fred
