RE: Authenticated Outgoing Mail

  • From: "John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)" <johnlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'[ExchangeList]'" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:29:22 -0700

What, Michael was wrong on something? The shock of it.




Besides, the RFC process is far from ideal and is subject to inconsistencies
like everything else.


Yes, the final rule should say MUST, oh, but that would mean all those
e-mail server vendors out there would have to update their software. (BTW,
Imail from Ipswitch was one of the first ones to add this feature, the
ability to force authentication on that port, meaning that if AUTH is not
one of the first couple of verbs sent and absolutely before FROM or DATA,
the connection is CLOSED!)


John T

eServices For You


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:20 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Authenticated Outgoing Mail

Randall Gellens and myself, in the mid-1980's, wrote a mainframe-based
e-mail system together. :-) I was shocked to see him listed as one of the
principal authors. I'll have to give him a call.


Anyway, you are right, I am wrong In the final RFC, it no longer says


That aside, my basic point remains -- if you require separate authentication
requirements, you need multiple virtual servers. In my experience, if you've
implemented 587, you require auth on it, whether the RFC says so or not.


You still get the point, tho. :-)  I hate being wrong in a public forum.



Other related posts: